I don't like the id that id will be used for a list of ids. I would like to see the two both added to the api. They don't even need to bee mutually exclusive. the (human) semantics of id and ids is (in english) quite different and should be honored.
regards, Daan On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > Yes. > > -min > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 7, 2014, at 11:10 AM, "Alena Prokharchyk" >> <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> We can just agree from now on to use the ³id" for handling multiple ids. >> And of course, we can never delete the ³ID² parameter just to satisfy the >> old convention, as this is the most used parameter :) >> >> I can see that several existing commands - archive/deleteAlerts are using >> ApiConstants.IDs parameter. We can mark IDs as deprecated, so its no >> longer used by new commands. >> >> -Alena. >> >>> On 2/7/14, 11:03 AM, "Koushik Das" <koushik....@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>> Good point Min. >>> I also thought about it but looking at some of the existing APIs thought >>> of keeping both. >>> >>> For e.g. in deploy VM api there is a parameter called 'networkids' which >>> can take an array of network IDs. Note that the naming convention of >>> ending in 's'. Now by this logic we should name the parameter 'ids' and >>> remove the existing parameter 'id' which will be a breaking change. In >>> case the existing 'id' parameter is used for multiple IDs that breaks the >>> parameter naming convention. >>> >>> I am all in favour of using the existing 'id' parameter if there is no >>> issues with breaking the naming convention. >>> >>> >>>> On 07-Feb-2014, at 11:25 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Koushik, >>>> >>>> I agree with the idea of supporting multiple IDs. But I may not like >>>> the >>>> idea of introducing another different query parameter "ids" for this >>>> purpose. Why cannot we just change current "id" parameter to take a list >>>> of values? This way, user will not need to use two different parameters >>>> for single or multiple cases. Maintaining two different parameters for >>>> similar purpose is error-prone. If you look at Amazon EC2 api, you will >>>> notice that they are also using the similar convention, id parameter can >>>> be one or more. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -min >>>> >>>>> On 2/6/14 3:24 AM, "Koushik Das" <koushik....@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes it will be like a findByIds() and the one id case is just a special >>>>> case for this. >>>>> >>>>> On 06-Feb-2014, at 4:24 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> looks nice, it will be backed by the current query for one id? or will >>>>>> you write a findByIds()? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Abhinandan Prateek >>>>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> +1, The listVM call is one of the most resource intensive call. Any >>>>>>> step >>>>>>> to optimise it are welcome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 06/02/14 2:01 pm, "Koushik Das" <koushik....@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Currently list VM can only be called using a single VM ID. So if >>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>> a need to query a set of VMs using ID then either multiple list VM >>>>>>>> calls >>>>>>>> need to be made or all VMs needs to be fetched and then do a client >>>>>>>> side >>>>>>>> filtering. Both approaches are sub-optimal - the former results in >>>>>>>> multiple queries to database and the latter will be an overkill if >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> need a small subset from a very large number of VMs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proposal is to have an additional parameter to specify a list of >>>>>>>> VM >>>>>>>> IDs for which the data needs to be fetched. Using this the required >>>>>>>> VMs >>>>>>>> can be queried in an efficient manner. With the new parameter the >>>>>>>> syntax >>>>>>>> would look like >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://localhost:8096/api?command=listVirtualMachines&listAll=true&id >>>>>>>> s= >>>>>>>> edd >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ac053-9b12-4d2e-acb7-233de2e98112,009966fc-4d7b-4f84-8609-254979ba013 >>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The new 'ids' parameter will be mutually exclusive with the existing >>>>>>>> 'id' >>>>>>>> parameter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me know if there are any concerns/comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Koushik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Daan >> -- Daan
