Sean Dague wrote on 01/07/2015 06:21:52 AM:
> From: Sean Dague
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Date: 01/07/2015 06:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [api] [sdk] Proposal to achieve
> consistency in client side sorting
>
> On 01/06/2015 09:37 PM, Rochelle Gro
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Everett Toews
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell <
> kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 12:19 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> >> I'm all for consistency. Sounds like a great case for the API Working
> >> Group to docum
On 01/06/2015 09:37 PM, Rochelle Grober wrote:
> Steven,
>
>
>
> This sounds like a perfect place for a cross project spec. It wouldn’t
> have to be a big one, but all the projects would have a chance to review
> and the TC would oversee to ensure it gets proper review.
>
>
>
> TCms, am I
jsbry...@electronicjungle.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:41 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [api] [sdk] Proposal to achieve consistency in
client side sorting
Steven,
Thank you for continuing to pursue this. Adding this functionalit
On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell
wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 12:19 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
>> I'm all for consistency. Sounds like a great case for the API Working
>> Group to document. You can propose a patch describing the way we want
>> sorting to work.
>>
>>
>> See http
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 12:19 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> I'm all for consistency. Sounds like a great case for the API Working
> Group to document. You can propose a patch describing the way we want
> sorting to work.
>
>
> See https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/api-wg,n,z
I real
Steven,
Thank you for continuing to pursue this. Adding this functionality and
having it consistent will be a good thing.
The plan for Cinder looks good to me and is consistent with Mike and
Duncan's input.
I look forward to seeing patches for Cinder.
Jay
On 01/06/2015 10:03 AM, Steven K
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Steven Kaufer wrote:
> This is a follow up thread to [1]
>
> In order to have consistency across clients, I am proposing that the
> client side sorting has the following syntax: --sort [:]
>
> Where the --sort parameter is comma-separated and is used to specify on
This is a follow up thread to [1]
In order to have consistency across clients, I am proposing that the client
side sorting has the following syntax: --sort [:]
Where the --sort parameter is comma-separated and is used to specify one or
more sort keys and directions. The direction defaults to 'd
