: [Openstack] [keystone] v3 API draft (update and questions to the
community)
On 13/06/2012, at 1:24 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> Totally agree with all of Jay's points, and I also couldn't agree more with
> Mark on the importance of being crystal clear, and not operating on just a
> &q
- Gabriel
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:m...@mnot.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:43 PM
> To: Gabriel Hurley
> Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [keystone] v3 API draft (update and questions to
> the community)
>
>
.@lists.launchpad.netDate: 06/12/2012 11:28PMSubject: Re: [Openstack] [keystone] v3 API draft (update and questions to the community)Totally agree with all of Jay's points, and I also couldn't agree more with Mark on the importance of being crystal clear, and not operating on just a "
t; My two cents,
>
>- Gabriel
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: openstack-bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebula@lists.launchpad.net
>> [mailto:openstack-
>> bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebula@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of
>> Mark Nottingham
>>
> [mailto:openstack-
> bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebula@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of
> Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:20 PM
> To: Jay Pipes
> Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [keystone] v3 API draft (update and questions to
On 13/06/2012, at 3:31 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> This isn't necessarily true. Nova's compute layer goes through a number of
> steps to ensure a semi-transactional nature to certain operations like
> resizing. Certain times a query needs to indicate that it intends to make a
> reservation of resou
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Gabriel Hurley
wrote:
> To speak on the specific feature of pagination, the problem of 'corruption'
> by simultaneous writers is no excuse for not implementing it. You think
> Google, Facebook, Flickr, etc. etc. etc. don't have this problem? If you
> consume the
The X-Subject-Token solution is definitely not valid HTTP, in that it
implies that two otherwise identical requests for GET /tokens would return
two completely different results (hence the need for a Vary header, as we
include for X-Auth-Token).
I have a slightly more proper (and complicated) solu
On 06/12/2012 12:21 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 06/12/2012 04:24 AM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
That said, we have also considered the case you propose where you
effectively "request everything and handle it on the client-side"...
however, I see that as a tremendously lazy solution. On the
service-provi
On 06/12/2012 04:24 AM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
Mark,
Apparently you must have missed my lightning talk at the Essex summit... ;-)
(http://gabrielhurley.github.com/slides/openstack/apis_like_orms/index.html)
Filtering, pagination, and many other API features are *critical* for a rich
dashboard
pad.net
[mailto:openstack-
bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebula@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of
Mark Nottingham
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:27 PM
To: Joseph Heck
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net (openstack@lists.launchpad.net)
Subject: Re: [Openstack] [keystone] v3 API draft (update and questions t
> P.S. the X-Subject-Token stuff is breaking HTTP; you need to either put the
> token (or a facsimile for it) in the URL, or put Vary: Subject-Token in EVERY
> response those resources generate. The former is preferred; this is over TLS,
> right? Sorry I didn't see that earlier.
>
> P.P.S If it
s on and generally agree, but
> when it comes to API features... I feel *very* strongly.
>
> All the best,
>
>- Gabriel
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: openstack-bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebula....@lists.launchpad.net
>> [mailto:openstack-
>>
nchpad.net
> [mailto:openstack-
> bounces+gabriel.hurley=nebula@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of
> Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:27 PM
> To: Joseph Heck
> Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net (openstack@lists.launchpad.net)
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [ke
On 11/06/2012, at 6:58 AM, Joseph Heck wrote:
> First - what's the current thought of support for PATCH vs PUT in updating
> REST resources? Are there any issues with clients being able to use a PATCH
> verb? It's not something I'm super familiar with, so I'm looking for feedback
> from the com
First a thank you to everyone who's swung by to read (and some comment) on the
V3 draft at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s9C4EMxIZ55kZr62CKEC9ip7He_Q4_g1KRfSk9hY-Sg/edit?pli=1.
It's been immensely useful.
To clear up a bit of confusion I caused (sorry Jay!) - there were *no* example
resp
16 matches
Mail list logo
