sorry about that. i'm +1 on deprecating APIv2 and APIv3 in the fashion you mentioned.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 2:39 PM ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't really want to propose anything more complex than deprecating APIv2 > and APIv3 in this thread. Which isn't to say that I don't have opinions on > all of this, but it's starting to confuse the point when people are giving > +1s and -1s on things besides the thread subject. > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 2:17 PM Robert O Butts <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > so really TO (api) seems to have many versions > > > > The Traffic Ops application has a single project/app version. The TO > > Application "serves" multiple API Versions, which are unrelated to that > > application version. TO doesn't "have" many versions, it has one > version. A > > particular Traffic Ops version "10" might serve API versions X,Y,Z. But > > those API versions aren't "part" of the Traffic Ops Versions. There > exists > > no "Traffic Ops version 10" which serves any other API versions. And > there > > might exist other Traffic Ops versions which also serve X,Y,Z. So, TO > only > > has one version, "10." X,Y,Z are unrelated to 10, except that 10 is > > documented as serving X,Y,Z. > > > > > ATC is version 5.x, for example, so all the components are version 5.x, > > right? > > > > As an aside, IMO having separate application versions would make a lot of > > sense and make a lot of things easier. I don't want to push for that > right > > now, but something to think about. Maybe part of the version after the > > project, e.g. ATC could be Version 10.11 and Traffic Ops could have its > own > > application version 5.7, so Traffic Ops would have the complete version > > "atc-10.11-to-5.7-hash-abc123.rpm" or whatever. I think that might make > it > > clearer when one app hasn't changed even if the project did, especially > > with our apps that don't change very often. Something to think about. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 1:44 PM Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > All good points but also consider this, ATC is version 5.x, for > example, > > so > > > all the components are version 5.x, right? meaning the TO component > (aka > > > the TO api) is.... version 5.x.... :) > > > > > > so really TO (api) seems to have many versions (5.x inherited from the > > > project and 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, the versions of the "interface"). yes, > > > confusing... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 1:32 PM Robert O Butts <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, after years of API confusion, is it time to simply sync the > ATC > > > > > version with the API version (brennan has touched on this in the > > past) > > > > > starting with our "next" API version. So instead of APIv5, we'd > just > > > jump > > > > > to APIv7. ex: > > > > > > > > I strongly disagree with "synchronizing" the API and project version. > > The > > > > idea that they need to be the same is deeply confused about what they > > > are, > > > > and making them the same will reinforce that confusion with the > people > > > who > > > > are confused. > > > > > > > > The project version and the API version are completely independent > and > > > > unrelated things. The idea that they need to be versioned together > and > > > are > > > > somehow the same thing is incredibly confused and mistaken about the > > > > fundamental idea of what an API is and what a code project is. > > > > > > > > The API is the API. The project is the project. An API is an > > Application > > > > Programming Interface: an interface, like an electric outlet or a > water > > > > faucet connection. The Traffic Control project is a code project: a > > > > collection of applications, written in code, to do a thing, in this > > case > > > a > > > > CDN. > > > > > > > > These are completely, entirely, totally different things. It would be > > > like > > > > working for a company that sells both laptops and capacitors, and > > saying, > > > > "Our capacitors and laptops should have the same serial numbers, > > because > > > > they both contain iron atoms." > > > > > > > > Yes, the code in the project serves certain APIs. But the two things > > are > > > > completely independent. Giving them the same version will reinforce > the > > > > wrong and confused belief that they're somehow the same thing, when > > > > literally the only thing they have in common as ideas is that they're > > two > > > > version numbers published by Apache Traffic Control. > > > > > > > > Moreover, All Traffic Control applications will always have to serve > at > > > > least one major version back, in order to make it possible to > upgrade. > > So > > > > the confused idea that they're somehow the same will be made even > more > > > > confusing, because now people think "The API is the same as the > > Project, > > > > and the version proves it, but the project has to serve multiple > APIs." > > > > Making people even more confused. > > > > > > > > In fact, I'm inclined to think making the versions completely > different > > > > schemes, such as one being letters and the other numbers, would help > > > reduce > > > > the confusion, and make it more clear that the two versioned things > are > > > > completely unrelated. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 1:00 PM Jeremy Mitchell < > mitchell...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ^^ I'm good with this. > > > > > > > > > > Also, after years of API confusion, is it time to simply sync the > ATC > > > > > version with the API version (brennan has touched on this in the > > past) > > > > > starting with our "next" API version. So instead of APIv5, we'd > just > > > jump > > > > > to APIv7. ex: > > > > > > > > > > ATCv7 supports APIv7 (to get inline with ATC version) and APIv4 > (the > > > api > > > > > version from ATCv6) > > > > > ATCv8 supports APIv8 and APIv7 > > > > > etc > > > > > > > > > > but then i guess that begs the question, if we bump the major ATC > > > version > > > > > for another reason (big feature or something), does that mean we > have > > > to > > > > > bump the API version if not really necessary just to keep ATCv == > > APIv? > > > > > > > > > > jeremy > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:08 PM Rawlin Peters <raw...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of backward compatibility expectation are we aiming > for > > > > here? > > > > > > With 1.x we were coming from 5+ years of backward compatibility > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we ever intended for API 1.x to live for so long, > but > > > we > > > > > > also never promised an agreed-upon amount of time for backwards > > > > > > compatibility. I think the intention is that we'd like to have > one > > > > > > major release cycle where both major API versions are supported > (in > > > > > > order for clients to have a transitionary period), then we are > free > > > to > > > > > > remove the deprecated API version in the following release. The > > > amount > > > > > > of time we remain backwards-compatible should really depend on > how > > > > > > long the release cycles are, which we're aiming for quarterly. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree it is a lot of headache to update 3rd party tooling as > API > > > > > > versions are deprecated and removed (which is why I'm hoping we > > don't > > > > > > introduce another major API version very soon), but hopefully the > > > vast > > > > > > majority of cases are simply updating the URLs from 2.0 or 3.0 to > > > 4.0, > > > > > > since there should only be a small number of breakages from 2.0 > to > > > 4.0 > > > > > > (mostly servers-related routes) that would actually require > > changing > > > > > > more than just the URL. Migrating from 1.x has probably been more > > > > > > difficult since we dropped a lot of redundant routes. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Rawlin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Rawlin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 11:43 AM Gray, Jonathan > > > > > > <jonathan_g...@comcast.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of backward compatibility expectation are we aiming > for > > > > here? > > > > > > With 1.x we were coming from 5+ years of backward compatibility > and > > > now > > > > > it > > > > > > seems like we’re aiming for < 1 year with rotation at every major > > > rev. > > > > > > That’s a lot of headache for 3rd party tooling support to > > constantly > > > be > > > > > > changing regardless if that means you’re upgrading SDK > dependencies > > > or > > > > > raw > > > > > > HTTP calls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rawlin Peters <raw...@apache.org> > > > > > > > Date: Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:54 AM > > > > > > > To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org < > dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Deprecate APIv2 and v3 > > > > > > > +1 on deprecating API v2-3 with the release of ACTv6 and > removing > > > > them > > > > > > > in ATCv7. Hopefully we won't need a TO API v5 very soon so we > can > > > > have > > > > > > > a break from the API instability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on not requiring every v2 and v3 endpoint to return > > deprecation > > > > > > > notices. I think just mentioning it on the mailing list, the > > > > > > > changelog, and the docs should cover it. Updating all the v2/v3 > > > > > > > endpoints to return deprecation notices would be quite a lot of > > > code > > > > > > > change with very little benefit IMO. However, for certain > > endpoints > > > > > > > that have no v4 equivalent, we are returning deprecation > notices > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > cachegroup parameters). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Rawlin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:28 AM ocket 8888 < > ocket8...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the release of APIv4 in ATCv6, should we simultaneously > > > > > deprecate > > > > > > > > APIv2 and APIv3? I think so, that'll mean we can remove them > in > > > > > ATCv7, > > > > > > > > whereupon the stable API 4.0 will have existed for a full > major > > > > rev, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > APIv5 will ostensibly be released (if not sooner, since we > > could > > > do > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > e.g. in a 6.1). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, we should also discuss what that will mean materially. > > > With > > > > > > > > endpoints that disappear between API versions we have them > > return > > > > > > > > warning-level alerts that indicate they won't be available on > > > > > upgrade, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > for APIv1 as a whole we didn't issue any kind of formal > notice > > > > afaik, > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > even a changelog entry. I think the right answer is somewhere > > > > between > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > - a changelog entry and notices on the APIv2 and APIv3 > > reference > > > > > > sections > > > > > > > > of the documentation. I don't think it's necessary to mention > > on > > > > each > > > > > > > > endpoint that the entire API version is deprecated, either in > > the > > > > > > > > documentation or in the API through Alerts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
