On Jun 18, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Christopher Armstrong <chris.armstr...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> Hi Adrian, thanks for the response. I'll just respond to one thing > right now (since it's way after hours for me ;) > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Otto <adrian.o...@rackspace.com> > wrote: >> On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Christopher Armstrong >> <chris.armstr...@rackspace.com> >> wrote: >> >>> tl;dr POST /$tenant/stacks/$stack/resources/ ? >> >> Yes. > > [snip] > >>> This is basically the gist of the question. I believe the answer >>> should be the same as the answer about any other type of resource we >>> might want to manipulate through the API -- it seems best that either >>> all resource types are manipulated through a generic resource >>> manipulation API, This is the one I prefer less. >>> or they should all have their own specific ReST >>> collection. This is the one I prefer more. >> Give them specific collections, so they can be easily specialized. > > > These two points are contradictory, aren't they? The main point of my > email was trying to decide between the two -- either create the > autoscaling resources by POSTing to a generic "resources" collection, Prefer less. > or by POSTing to specific URLs that represent the *type* of resource > I'm creating. Prefer more. > (it seems like the idea of creating these resources in the Heat stack > *at all* is under debate as well, but I just wanted to address this > one point in this email). Hopefully that's clear. Adrian > > > -- > IRC: radix > Christopher Armstrong > Rackspace > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev