2015-06-26 4:21 GMT+09:00 Dean Troyer <dtro...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: >> >> For someone that's extremely familiar with what they are doing, they'll >> understand that http://service.provider/compute is Nova, and can find >> their way to Nova docs on the API. But for new folks, I can only see >> this adding to confusion. > > > Anyone using the REST API directly has already gotten an endpoint from the > service catalog using the service type (I'm ignoring the deprecated 'name' > field). The version header should match up directly to the type used to get > the endpoint.
Yeah, I had the same thinking. Based on it, we can remove generic name(compute, identity, etc) from API microversions header. But now I feel it is fine to use the generic name if the name is allocated quickly just after a project is created and the name is stable. JSON-Home also needs something for representing each project in a response payload like: http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-identity/3/rel http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-compute/2.1/rel for the relationship. So even if we can remove the name from microversion header, we need something for representing each project. I tend to prefer generic name(compute, identity, etc) because the name seems stable. I push this to api-wg guidline[1] for cross projects. Thanks Ken Ohmichi --- [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196918/ __________________________________________________________________________ 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