Removal is definitely not on the table until at least ATCv7 On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 10:56 AM Gray, Jonathan <jonathan_g...@comcast.com.invalid> wrote:
> Be aware that the ansible deployment code is dependent on v2 for the > moment until it’s updated again. Deprecation is fine, but if it’s removed > we’ll be in the same boat we were in when 1.x got removed. > > Jonathan G > > From: ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 10:53 AM > To: dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org <dev@trafficcontrol.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Deprecate APIv2 and v3 > Alright, it seems like nobody is opposed to deprecating APIv2 (please > correct me if that's wrong), so assuming that's the case to be perfectly > clear on what everyone wants to do, I'd like to call for a final vote on > whether or not to deprecate APIv3, so that if we do we can get it into the > docs and changelog by the 16th when the release is currently set to be cut. > > I'm +1 on my own proposal, unsurprisingly. > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:28 AM ocket 8888 <ocket8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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$ > > > >> < > >> > 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$ > > > >> < > >> > 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$ > > > >> < > >> > 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$ > > > >> < > >> > 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. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
