On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 02/05/2014 01:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> >> On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: >> >>> On 02/05/2014 01:09 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net >>>> <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Can you be more specific about what goes wrong here? I'm not entirely >>>> sure I understand why an old client of arbitrary age needs to be >>>> supported with new OpenStack. The contract is the API, not the client, >>>> and an old client that doesn't do version discovery is just a buggy >>>> client from what I'm concerned. Time to release a new version. >>>> >>>> >>>> Problem 1: API version discovery is not universally considered to be >>>> part of the API and therefore is not defined by most services beyond >>>> them responding to a '/' request with a 300 response and a list of >>>> versions. No two of these responses look alike except where the source >>>> was copied from an existing service. >>>> >>>> Problem 2: Identity is unique in that it is handed a deployment-defined >>>> URL to authenticate and get endpoints for all other services. Most of >>>> these auth URLs have a version hard-coded in them because the client >>>> didn't do version discovery or negotiation until recently. This is what >>>> we're talking about here, how to remove the version from this URL and >>>> not break old clients. We can't. Not without doing nasty things like >>>> detecting an old client and compensating for it server-side. So we have >>>> to work out a way for new clients to do discovery even when handed a URL >>>> that has a version in it. >>>> >>>> I've tested a couple of more generalized approaches, and the best >>>> solution I have found so far is to simply special-case the known legacy >>>> behaviour then drop in to the general discovery process. >>>> >>>> I also wonder if this is an issue with version discovery implementation. >>>> It seems like if we think this is going to be affecting multiple >>>> services before doing an odd hack for keystone, we should actually >>>> figure out a pattern that works for all services, and figure out why >>>> this has only just become an issue. Most of the other services have done >>>> >>>> >>>> The services that traditionally embed a version inside the URL followed >>>> by a tenant ID or something get even deeper into parsing the URL to hack >>>> the version. >>>> >>>> dual APIs at some point over the last 2 years, and this didn't seem to >>>> trip them up too badly. What happened differently in keystone that made >>>> this an issue? And what can be learned about how we structure APIs going >>>> forward. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the difference is this is the first API we have actually tried >>>> to deprecate and we don't have the option to hide it in an updated SC >>>> endpoint. The service catalog has hidden a lot of this pain for other >>>> services because the clients generally can use whatever endpoint the SC >>>> gives it. >>>> >>>> >>>> a) Version discovery needs to be rationalized across the services. >>>> We've talked about this at summits before, and proposals have been >>>> written. And here we are. We'll do it again in Atlanta, hopefully for >>>> the last time. >>>> >>>> b) Define a common structured endpoint and let the client assemble the >>>> components into the final URL. If the service catalog had a base URL >>>> for compute, and a list of versions, and the additional bits to be >>>> appended the client could make an intelligent choice and assemble the >>>> endpoint. It isn't like the client doesn't already have to know how the >>>> REST URLs are constructed. >>>> >>>> b-alt) Stop putting things like tenant IDs in the SC. This has the same >>>> issue as the auth URL in how to do this without instantly breaking the >>>> existing clients. >>> >>> Ok, much clearer now to me (though I'll still claim jetlag for some bits >>> not sinking in). >>> >>> I think a really important thing to keep in mind is any solution that's >>> implemented client side, is something that all the other OpenStack SDKs >>> are going to have to implement as well. So an ugly hack isn't just >>> python-keystone... and be done. It's also just hoisted doing that ugly >>> hack on the php / go sdk teams, jclouds, deltacloud, etc. Something they >>> may not be aware is going to break them, or their users. >> >> Do we have official openstack PHP / go SDKs? > > Official is a strong word, but we do have stackforge teams active on it: > * https://github.com/stackforge/openstack-sdk-php > * https://github.com/stackforge/golang-client > > And I think we should should be mindful of their work to make OpenStack > easily accessible from their language communities.
Oh for sure - but I was wondering because there’s also: jclouds (java): http://jclouds.apache.org/ php-opencloud (php): https://github.com/rackspace/php-opencloud fog (ruby): http://fog.io/ libcloud (python): http://libcloud.apache.org/ gophercloud (go): https://github.com/rackspace/gophercloud openstack .net (.net): https://github.com/rackspace/openstack.net So finding a go client and php one one stackforge is surprising - wondering if we can combine efforts - on my end I have full time people staffing *just* the client-side SDKs across all of these. So yes - we are sensitive to API changes. Jesse _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev