Open Stack

On Jan 26, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote:

A) This wasn't documented at all (AFAIK), so there's no concern of breaking contracts.

I agree, it shouldn't break anything.


B) Even if it's moved to an extension, would the call change from it's current form?:

    DELETE /tokens/{token_id}

I'm not sure what the extension convention is here.


We could put that in a separate URI, but I don't think we have to in this case. DELETE has a very well understood semantics.  I can't see a DELETE that would work in anyway different than this one.


-Dolph Mathews

On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Ziad Sawalha <ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com<mailto:ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com>> wrote:

If a client has bound to the contract XSD, they will break if we add this, won't they?

But… I don't know how many clients would have bound to the OS-KSADM contracts. We've been diligent and strict about not changing the core contract, but this is the first time we've been presented with a change to an extension like this.

I'd still lean towards the "correct" practice of adding this as another extension. Especially since that extension would only be adding a new method on an existing resource, so would not require complex naming changes…

Open to alternative points of view..

Z


From: Jorge Williams <jorge.williams at rackspace.com<mailto:jorge.williams at rackspace.com>>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:36:13 -0600
To: Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com<mailto:dolph.mathews at gmail.com>>
Cc: "Yee, Guang" <guang.yee at hp.com<mailto:guang.yee at hp.com>>, "openstack at lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net> (openstack at lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>)" <openstack at lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>>, Ziad Sawalha <ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com<mailto:ziad.sawalha at rackspace.com>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone: is revoke token API "officially" supported

Moving it to an extension makes sense to me.  Ziad, does it make sense to add it to OS-KSADM...or is this a different extension all together...revoke token extension?

-jOrGe W.

On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote:

It is definitely not a documented call (hence the "should this be removed?" comment in the implementation); if it were to be "promoted" from undocumented to an extension, I imagine it would belong in OS-KSADM.

- Dolph

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Yee, Guang <guang.yee at hp.com<mailto:guang.yee at hp.com>> wrote:
I see it implemented in the code as

DELETE /v2.0/tokens/{tokenId}

But it doesn’t appear to be documented in any of the WADLs.


Thanks!

Guang


_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120126/df5caa1c/attachment.html>