On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell <kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 12:19 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote: >> I'm all for consistency. Sounds like a great case for the API Working >> Group to document. You can propose a patch describing the way we want >> sorting to work. >> >> >> See https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/api-wg,n,z > > I really think that the API WG should be responsible for the REST API > only, TBH, and maybe for the Pythonic APIs. Once we start talking about > CLI options, I think that's outside the API WG's perview, and we > probably should have that be up to CLI authors. My thinking is that a > REST API and a Python API are both used by developers, where we have one > set of conventions; but when you start talking about CLI, you're really > talking about UX, and the rules there can be vastly different. Agreed. The scope [1] of the API WG is the HTTP (REST) API. We won’t be touching any language SDKs (one of which is referred to as Pythonic APIs above) or any CLIs. Thanks, Everett [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group#Scope _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
