I see that there are 2 different opinions 1. Use 'id' for multiple ids as well. This is simple and compact and nothing breaks. 2. Have both 'id' and 'ids'. This can lead to confusion if 'id' is not deprecated (breaking change and would require a version change).
Daan, Is it ok to move ahead with #1 for now? Later on when there is a version change required, this can be revisited. -----Original Message----- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014 5:11 PM To: dev Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] List VM API enhancement 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=t >>>>>>>> rue&id >>>>>>>> s= >>>>>>>> edd >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ac053-9b12-4d2e-acb7-233de2e98112,009966fc-4d7b-4f84-8609-25497 >>>>>>>> 9ba013 >>>>>>>> 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
