I don't disagree with any of that. On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 9:01 AM Gray, Jonathan <jonathan_g...@comcast.com.invalid> wrote:
> > so that APIv3 doesn't become the next entrenched version to be > hard-coded into a plethora of obscure scripts so that it takes over a year > to switch. > > Those scripts are just as important as the ATC project itself when it > comes to production operations. API version churn is expensive and it’s a > symbiotic relationship. OSS projects that maintain backward compatibility > are easier to work with and attain greater adoption. It’s just another > facet of encouraging adoption just like good PR processes and tests. > > Jonathan G > > From: ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 5:55 PM > To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org <dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Deprecate APIv2 and v3 > I have a link to the mailing list discussion: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b857afc7b52e72b2e60ebb3eb594b6fa5dd0ed3c9af5a17b58ee4a99*40*3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org*3E__;JSUl!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9fPda49a$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.apache.org/thread.html/b857afc7b52e72b2e60ebb3eb594b6fa5dd0ed3c9af5a17b58ee4a99*40*3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org*3E__;JSUl!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9fPda49a$ > > > > People can still use APIv3 (and v2) until ATCv7. if we don't deprecate > APIv3, then we're going to be in the same boat next time around when APIv5 > happens - which I know some people aren't thrilled about but I think we're > going to need it almost immediately after ATCv6 drops - where we have two > supported legacy API versions carrying around cruft and tech debt. IMO, we > need to rip this band-aid off sooner rather than later, so that APIv3 > doesn't become the next entrenched version to be hard-coded into a plethora > of obscure scripts so that it takes over a year to switch. > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:05 PM Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Isn't this email almost like a survey? Anyone doing API work is probably > > on this ML or should be. > > > > Brennan, do you have a link to that discussion? If it wasn't on list > then > > it didn't happen ;) > > > > Like I said, I am not going to -1 the proposal but given that I now know > > that 4.x isn't introduced until ATC 6.x, I don't see the big hurry to > > remove 2.x and 3.x. It seems a little premature to me, maybe we just do > > 2.x and not 3.x? Presumably folks that updated from 1.x went to 3.x and > we > > should give them a chance to use that before ripping it out too. > > > > Also, as an aside, it seems like we are adding more and more to 6.x, if > we > > want to get that out we should probably just focus on what needs to be > > completed and not adding more to it. > > > > --Dave > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 2:24 PM ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The reason that's relevant being that deprecating 2.0 and 3.0 with the > > > release of 4.0 is in-line with that strategy. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 2:23 PM ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > I know it doesn't change the reality of our situation, but fwiw APIv1 > > > > should've already been gone. From our discussion regarding versioning > > > when > > > > we were making APIv2 prior to ATC release 4.0: > > > > > > > > > TC 4.0: > > > > > - API 1.x supported, some deprecation notices > > > > > > > > > > TC 4.1: > > > > > - API 1.x still supported, deprecation notices added to endpoints > not > > > > graduated to 2.0 > > > > > - API 2.0 supported, consisting of 1.x endpoints that were > graduated > > > > > - starting with this release, you need to start migrating external > > > > clients off of 1.x over to 2.0 > > > > > > > > > > TC 4.2: > > > > > - internal clients (e.g. TM, TR, etc) will be migrated off API 1.x > > over > > > > to 2.0. Doing this step after 4.1 adds confidence that 1.x is still > > > > supported alongside 2.0 in order to provide a smooth migration period > > for > > > > API clients. > > > > > > > > > > TC 5.0: > > > > > - API 1.x no longer supported, only API 2.x is supported > > > > > > > > The only reason APIv1 exists in 5.x is because "starting with this > > > > release, you need to start migrating external clients off of 1.x over > > to > > > > 2.0" wound up taking much, much longer than we thought it would. The > > > plan, > > > > as I understand it, was always for only three API versions to ever > > > coexist > > > > - and only two released versions: > > > > - legacy version, deprecated, what everyone's using prior to upgrade > to > > > > ATC version that deprecates it > > > > - supported version, latest released > > > > - development version, not released, nobody should use except ATC > > > > components under active development. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:56 AM Rawlin Peters <raw...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I guess the question now is what do we think is "fair" for our > users? > > > >> Shouldn't they decide? Can we survey them? If it were me doing the > > > >> updates, I think I'd prefer to do the 2nd update as close to the 1st > > > >> update as possible, since those necessary changes would still be > fresh > > > >> in memory. Especially knowing that a 2nd update is coming at some > > > >> point, I'd rather just get it over with as soon as possible and not > > > >> have to worry about planning for it later down the line. > > > >> > > > >> - Rawlin > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:36 AM Zach Hoffman <zrhoff...@apache.org > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Does API 4.x exist before 6.0? > > > >> > > According to the most recent docs, yes. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://traffic-control-cdn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/index.html*api-v4-routes__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9fyRz_Si$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/traffic-control-cdn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/index.html*api-v4-routes__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9fyRz_Si$ > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Those are the docs for the master branch. > > > >> > There is no mention of API 4.x in the ATC 5.1.2 docs: > > > >> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://traffic-control-cdn.readthedocs.io/en/v5.1.2/api/index.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9Wv2iauE$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/traffic-control-cdn.readthedocs.io/en/v5.1.2/api/index.html__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9Wv2iauE$ > > > > > >> > > > > >> > -Zach > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:29 AM Gray, Jonathan > > > >> > <jonathan_g...@comcast.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > According to the most recent docs, yes. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://traffic-control-cdn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/index.html*api-v4-routes__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9fyRz_Si$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/traffic-control-cdn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/index.html*api-v4-routes__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!Q_lvH7GunLsRSIigt4CHJwosp0fih_-ArK7UVI4Z2cr5_J00BL2ZxgbYrYcu9fyRz_Si$ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Jonathan G > > > >> > > > > > >> > > From: Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> > > > >> > > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:59 AM > > > >> > > To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org < > dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org> > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Deprecate APIv2 and v3 > > > >> > > Does API 4.x exist before 6.0? > > > >> > > I am worried about basically telling our users that before they > > can > > > >> go to > > > >> > > 6.x they have to get off API 1.x but the latest at that point is > > 3.x > > > >> so > > > >> > > then we are turning around and saying they have to update again. > > I > > > >> would > > > >> > > prefer if we gave more time and did 2.0 now and 3.0 in our next > > > >> release. > > > >> > > I am not going to -1 because ultimately it is not going to > impact > > me > > > >> as > > > >> > > much as those that have already shared opinions, but I did want > to > > > >> make > > > >> > > sure we aren't being unfair to our users. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > >> > > Dave > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:40 PM Zach Hoffman < > > zrhoff...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > +1 for deprecating APIv2 and APIv3. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -Zach > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 3:28 PM Jeremy Mitchell < > > > >> mitchell...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 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. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
