I think we should assume there could be multiple Remote's from a single plugin. For example the Galaxy remote pulp_ansible syncs from is launching a backwards incompatible API (their v3), so we will probably need to maintain a v2Remote and a v3Remote. There could be a similar backwards compatibility difference in published metadata motivating multiple Publishers from a single plugin also.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:10 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m not sure I understand the reasoning behind implementing a > “v3/content/ansible/“ route. For example, we currently have > “v3/content/file/“ but no “v3/content/“ route. > > I think the point you raise around remotes and publishers is valid. Will > plugins ever implement multiple remotes or publishers? I was thinking that > there would always be one remote and one publisher class for each plugin > but I suppose this could be wrong. > > > David > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I've updated the issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3472 to reflect the >> current consensus. >> >> However, I have some other points I'd like to discuss before we move on. >> >> *Implied endpoint:* >> v3/content/ansible/roles/ implies that there is a v3/content/ansible/. >> Even though this does not exist, it could, but it is a little awkward. >> >> Implent v3/content/ansible/: >> >> 1. Create a model viewset and serializer for the ansible level: >> 1. class AnsibleContent(core.plugin.models.Content) >> 2. class AnsibleContentSerializer(core. >> plugin.serializers.ContentSerializer) >> 3. class AnsibleContentViewSet(core.plugin.viewsets.ContentViewSet) >> 1. endpoint = "ansible" >> 2. Make the Role model, VS, and Serializer inherit from the >> AnsibleContent Model, VS, and Serializer >> >> The end result is that v3/content/ansible/ will return all Ansible >> content units, including Roles. v3/content/ansible/roles/ will only return >> Roles. >> >> *Publishers and Remotes* >> The above workflow makes sense and is useful if there are multiple units, >> but for the File plugin, this pattern adds an endpoint and 3 classes to the >> Content. If we want to be consistent and apply this to Remotes and >> Publishers, this is 3 useless endpoints and 9 extra classes. (These classes >> are simple, even if they are extraneous, conceptually) >> >> *IMO* >> I think we should document all of this in the plugin docs. For single >> type (and single remote, and single publisher) plugins, it will make more >> sense not to add an extra namespace. If we document how to add the extra >> namespace and when/why plugins should, that will be sufficient. Promoting >> consistency over simplicity in this case seems too far. >> >> *Or...* >> We could alter the Master/Detail code. I only have vague ideas about how >> to do this, but Master/Detail would essentially become >> Master/Plugin/Detail. This seems "right", but there isn't as much gain here >> as you might think. If we did it this, plugins would be required to >> namespace, and would be still be required to make all those extra classes. >> The only practical difference is that the AnsibleRoleViewSet.endpoint = >> "roles" instead of "ansible/roles". Either way, the endpoint would be >> v3/content/ansible/roles/ >> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to option 1. It's consistent. >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Option 1 is the most consistent. +1 to option 1 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> IMO: >>>>> We should suggest v3/content/<plugin>/<type>/. [Proposal 1] We should >>>>> mention the other options with the pros, cons in the plugin writer docs. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:54 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3407 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The correct link is: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3472 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
