On 10/20/14, 10:38 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/20/2014 10:26 AM, Amit Gandhi wrote: >> Thanks for the clarification Sam. >> >> Its good to know where the mission of the API working group starts and >> stops. During the meetup discussions, my understanding was that the >> working group would recommend the technologies to use while building >>apis >> (e.g. Pecan, validation frameworks, etc) and were in the process of >> looking into tools such as warlock. > >Sorry, did I miss something? What meetup discussions are you referring >to? I'm not aware of any meetings of the API working group so far... Sorry, I was referring to the local Atlanta Openstack Meetup that happened last Thursday (mentioned in my initial email that started this thread). > > > Hence the recommendation to add >> another library into the mix for evaluation, based on advise by other >> stackers in the community. >> >> Your response clarifies that the aim of the API working group is just to >> recommend on standardizing the interfaces from various API's (which I am >> looking forward to) and not the libraries used to implement that >>interface. > >I don't really think the working group has decided yet what it will be >producing, with regards to recommendations and what topics it may >provide guidance on. Heck, AFAIK, we still haven't settled on a day of >the week and time to hold IRC meetings! ;) Okay good to know. That probably explains why I¹m hearing different things from different people who probably all have different visions of what the working group is. > >> For stackers who are interested in different validation frameworks to >> implement validation, I recommend checking out Stoplight. > >Just my two cents on this particular topic, I think it's more important >to standardize ways in which our public REST APIs expose the payload >expectations and response schemas to clients. In other words... we need >to focus on methods for API discovery. Once you have standardized >resource URI, request payload, and response schema discovery, then any >number of validation libraries may be used. +1 > >Best, >-jay > >_______________________________________________ >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
