On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 14:48 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > My conclusions from all that: > > 1) This sucks > > 2) At the very least, we should be clear in our API samples tests > which of the three formats we expect - we should only change the > format used in a given part of the API after considering any > compatibility considerations > > 3) We should unify on a single format in the v3 API - IMHO, we should > be explicit about use of the UTC timezone and we should avoid > including microseconds unless there's a clear use case. In other > words, we should use the 'isotime' format. > > 4) The 'xmltime' format is just a dumb historical mistake and since > XML support is now firmly out of favor, let's not waste time > improving the timestamp situation in XML. > > 5) We should at least consider moving to a single format in the v2 > (JSON) API. IMHO, moving from strtime to isotime for fields like > created_at and updated_at would be highly unlikely to cause any > real issues for API users. > > (Following up this email with some patches that I'll link to, but I want > to link to this email from the patches themselves)
See here: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/nova+topic:timestamp-format,n,z Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev