Hi, keystone devs, Thank you for your many opinions about request id mapping. I fixed this patch [1] by the way that Brant and Cao gave me suggestions [2]. Could you review it?
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/261188/ [2] http://paste.openstack.org/show/495040/ Thank you, On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:37:31 -0700 Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:07 AM, David Stanek <dsta...@dstanek.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:26 AM koshiya maho <koshiya.m...@po.ntts.co.jp> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> My request to all keystone cores to give their suggestions about the same. > >> > >> > > I'll test this a little and see if I can see how it breaks. > > > > Overall I'm not really a fan of this design. It's just a hack to add > > attributes where they don't belong. Long term I think this will be hard to > > maintain. > > > > > > > If we want to return a response object we should return a response object. > Returning a magic list with attributes (or a dict with attributes, etc) > feels very, very wrong. > > I'm not going to block this design, but I wish we had something a bit > better. > > --Morgan -- Maho Koshiya E-Mail : koshiya.m...@po.ntts.co.jp __________________________________________________________________________ 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
