On 5/18/16, 2:15 AM, "Clint Byrum" <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote:
>Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2016-05-18 14:57:05 +1200: >> On 18 May 2016 at 00:54, Brian Rosmaita <brian.rosma...@rackspace.com> >>wrote: >> >> >> Couple of examples: >> >> 1. switching from "is_public=true" to "visibility=public" >> > >> > >> > This was a major version change in the Images API. The 'is_public' >>boolean >> > is in the original Images v1 API, 'visibility' was introduced with the >> > Images v2 API in the Folsom release. You just need an awareness of >>which >> > version of the API you're talking to. >> >> So I realise this is ancient history, but this is really a good >> example of why Monty has been pushing on 'never break our APIs': API >> breaks hurt users, major versions or not. Keeping the old attribute as >> an alias to the new one would have avoided the user pain for a very >> small amount of code. >> >> We are by definition an API - doesn't matter that its HTTP vs Python - >> when we break compatibility, there's a very long tail of folk that >> will have to spend time updating their code; 'Microversions' are a >> good answer to this, as long as we never raise the minimum version we >> support. glibc does a very similar thing with versioned symbols - and >> they support things approximately indefinitely. > >+1, realy well said. As Nikhil said, assumptions are bad, and assuming >that nobody's using that, or that they'll just adapt, is not really a >great way to establish a relationship with the users. I agree with the general sentiment, and I sincerely hope that all OpenStack projects take it to heart. I also want to note for the record that the Images API really did need a major version change. cheers, brian __________________________________________________________________________ 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
