On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Mikhail Fedosin wrote:
For example, deactivating an image in Glance looks like *POST*
/v2/images/{image_id}/actions/deactivate with empty body.
At one time, Chris Dent advised us to avoid such decisions, and simply
change the status of the artifact to 'deactivated' using *PATCH*, which we
did.
Indeed I did. The point of that was to avoid "actions" style URLs on
resources that already have that information in their
representations so that the interface is more RESTful and doesn't
have a profusion of verby URLs. The other option is to PUT a full
representation with the status changed.
But that's not the point here. The issue is that in order for Glare
to provide a seamless compatibility layer with Glance it needs to be
able to present a facade which is _identical_ to Glance. Not mostly
the same but with improvement, but identical with all the same
warts.
This provides a critical part in a smooth migration plan. As people
become aware of glare being there, they can start taking advantage
of the new features in their new code or code that they are ready to
update, without having to update old stuff.
If Glare has fairly good separation between the code that handles
URLs and processes bodies (in and out) and the code that does stuff
with those bodies[1], it ought to be somewhat straightforward to
create such a facade.
[1] Not gonna use model, view, controller here; those terms have
never been accurate for web-based APIs.
--
Chris Dent ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ) https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
