For the moment Manila project, as well as Cinder, does have inconsistency
between entity and API naming, such as:
- "share type" ("volume type" in Cinder) entity has "/types/{id}" URL
- "share snapshot" ("volume snapshot" in Cinder) entity has
"/snapshots/{id}" URL
BUT, Manila has other Manila-specific APIs as following:
- "share network" entity and "/share-networks/{id}" API
- "share server" entity and "/share-servers/{id}" API
And with implementation of new features [1] it becomes a problem, because
we start having
"types" and "snapshots" for different things (share and share groups, share
types and share group types).
So, here is first open question:
What is our convention in naming APIs according to entity names?
- Should APIs contain full name or it may be shortened?
- Should we restrict it to some of the variants (full or shortened) or
allow some API follow one approach and some follow other approach, consider
it as "don't care"? Where "don't care" case is current approach, de facto.
Then, we have second question here:
- Should we use only "dash" ( - ) symbols in API names or "underscore" ( _
) is allowed?
- Should we allow both variants at once for each API?
- Should we allow APIs use any of variants and have zoo with various
approaches?
In Manila project, mostly "dash" is used, except one API -
"share_instances".
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/315730/
--
Kind Regards
Valeriy Ponomaryov
[email protected]
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
