,
Is it ok to move ahead with #1 for now? Later on when there is a version
change required, this can be revisited.
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014 5:11 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] List VM API enhancement
I don't
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] List VM API enhancement
I don't like the id that id will be used for a list of ids. I would like
to see the two both added to the api. They don't even need to bee mutually
exclusive. the (human) semantics of id and ids is (in
english) quite different and should
with #1 for now? Later on when there is a version change
required, this can be revisited.
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014 5:11 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] List VM API enhancement
I don't like the id that id
I don't like the id that id will be used for a list of ids. I would
like to see the two both added to the api. They don't even need to bee
mutually exclusive. the (human) semantics of id and ids is (in
english) quite different and should be honored.
regards,
Daan
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:24 PM,
Hi Koushik,
I agree with the idea of supporting multiple IDs. But I may not like the
idea of introducing another different query parameter ids for this
purpose. Why cannot we just change current id parameter to take a list
of values? This way, user will not need to use two different
] List VM API enhancement
Hi Koushik,
I agree with the idea of supporting multiple IDs. But I may not like the
idea of introducing another different query parameter ids for this purpose.
Why cannot we just change current id parameter to take a list of values?
This way, user will not need
Yes, agree to this as well.
Accordingly we need to handle the getEntityOwnerId() dependency.
-Original Message-
From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:06 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] List VM API enhancement
+1 It's
Good point Min.
I also thought about it but looking at some of the existing APIs thought of
keeping both.
For e.g. in deploy VM api there is a parameter called 'networkids' which can
take an array of network IDs. Note that the naming convention of ending in 's'.
Now by this logic we should
We can just agree from now on to use the ³id for handling multiple ids.
And of course, we can never delete the ³ID² parameter just to satisfy the
old convention, as this is the most used parameter :)
I can see that several existing commands - archive/deleteAlerts are using
ApiConstants.IDs
@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] List VM API enhancement
+1 It's confusing to have id and ids all over the place. We should just say
all ids can come in arrays by default.
--Alex
-Original Message-
From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.comhttp://citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, February 7
Yes.
-min
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Alena Prokharchyk
alena.prokharc...@citrix.com wrote:
We can just agree from now on to use the ³id for handling multiple ids.
And of course, we can never delete the ³ID² parameter just to satisfy the
old convention, as this is
Currently list VM can only be called using a single VM ID. So if there is a
need to query a set of VMs using ID then either multiple list VM calls need to
be made or all VMs needs to be fetched and then do a client side filtering.
Both approaches are sub-optimal - the former results in multiple
+1, The listVM call is one of the most resource intensive call. Any step
to optimise it are welcome.
On 06/02/14 2:01 pm, Koushik Das koushik@citrix.com wrote:
Currently list VM can only be called using a single VM ID. So if there is
a need to query a set of VMs using ID then either multiple
looks nice, it will be backed by the current query for one id? or will
you write a findByIds()?
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com wrote:
+1, The listVM call is one of the most resource intensive call. Any step
to optimise it are welcome.
On
Yes it will be like a findByIds() and the one id case is just a special case
for this.
On 06-Feb-2014, at 4:24 PM, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com
wrote:
looks nice, it will be backed by the current query for one id? or will
you write a findByIds()?
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM,
your a champion
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Koushik Das koushik@citrix.com wrote:
Yes it will be like a findByIds() and the one id case is just a special case
for this.
On 06-Feb-2014, at 4:24 PM, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com
wrote:
looks nice, it will be backed by the
16 matches
Mail list logo
