I am concerned about some of the implications that are being discussed.
1) A WADL is part of documentation of an API. Nobody is going to object to more
documentation.
2) Being an open-source project, if somebody wants to commit to creating and
maintaining a WADL for a particular part of
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:39 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
The important thing is that code talks. If you want WADLs (or your flavor of
WADLs), make them! Stop trying to architect systems for architects. These
things are meant to be used. Let's focus on what is necessary for getting a
reliable
On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
Swift had the advantage of starting out as a closed source project that
only had to serve a single master, and thus didn't need external
orchestration to keep it on track. Nova, OTOH, as a community development
effort, essentially had to
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM, John Dickinson m...@not.mn wrote:
I am concerned about some of the implications that are being discussed.
1) A WADL is part of documentation of an API. Nobody is going to object to
more documentation.
2) Being an open-source project, if somebody wants to
Couldn't agree more with this
On a side-note, I'm now going to sign all emails as
Weird,
-Matt
On 10/28/11 12:54 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM, John Dickinson m...@not.mn wrote:
I am concerned about some of the implications that are being discussed.
Well said John.
-joe
On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:26 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
Swift had the advantage of starting out as a closed source project that
only had to serve a single master, and thus didn't need external
orchestration to keep it on
On 26/10/2011, at 11:17 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
As discussed at the summit, I agree there should be some form of IDL (WADL
being the likely candidate for REST), I think manually crafting/maintaining a
WADL (or XML in general) is a fools errand. This stuff is made for machine
consumption
, 2011 10:16 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
On 26/10/2011, at 11:17 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
As discussed at the summit, I agree there should be some form of IDL (WADL
being
services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine-consumable at
runtime -- see the previous discussion on versioning and extensibility -- but
WADL isn't really designed for this. I'm sketching up something more
appropriate, and will be able to talk about
awake at night).
-S
From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm
JSON in C keeps me awake at night).
-S
From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services
]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck;
openstack@lists.launchpad.netmailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine-consumable
Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine-consumable
at runtime -- see the previous discussion on versioning and extensibility
-- but WADL isn't really designed for this. I'm
From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine
@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine-consumable
at runtime -- see the previous discussion on versioning and
extensibility -- but WADL isn't really designed for this. I'm sketching
up something more
; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being
machine-consumable at runtime -- see the previous discussion on
versioning and extensibility -- but WADL isn't really designed
: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:06 AM
To: Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
Excellent topic Joe, thanks for bringing this up.
There are two main perspectives on WADLs: WADLs from a service developer point
of view and WADLs from
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Mellquist, Peter
peter.mellqu...@hp.com wrote:
The topic of when an API should be defined is also important. Do we define an
API / WADL 1) up front before the service is implemented, 2) in parallel with
the impl, 3) or after the impl? I am an advocate of #1 or
+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net
[openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf
of Mellquist, Peter [peter.mellqu...@hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:06 AM
To: Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: [Openstack] +1, All services should
++Totally agree with that approach.
Looking forward to looking over the Images 2.0 API :-)
-jOrGe W.
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Mellquist, Peter
peter.mellqu...@hp.com wrote:
The topic of when an API should be defined is also important.
20 matches
Mail list logo
