On 02/20/2016 12:38 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> AS a point we are also trying to drop "versioned endpoints" as a thing
> from the catalog going forward. Please do not add a "cinderv3" or
> "volumev3" entry to the catalog. This is something that enourages adding
> for every version a new endpoint.
On 02/22/2016 10:22 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:40:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> I'd vote for the extra round trip and implementation of caching whenever
>> possible. Using another endpoint is really annoying, I already have
>> specific stuff for cinder to setup
On 02/20/2016 02:42 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 20 Feb 2016 00:21, "Walter A. Boring IV" > wrote:
> Not that I'm adding much to this conversation that hasn't been said
already, but I am pro v2 API, purely because of how painful and long
On 2/22/16, 9:33 AM, "Sean McGinnis" wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 07:59:17PM +0200, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>>
>> So we can't get users to change endpoints, or write our libraries to
>>have
>> sensible defaults, but we're somehow going to magically get consumers
>>to do
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 07:59:17PM +0200, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>
> So we can't get users to change endpoints, or write our libraries to have
> sensible defaults, but we're somehow going to magically get consumers to do
> the much harder job of doing version probes in their code/libraries so that
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:40:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> I'd vote for the extra round trip and implementation of caching whenever
> possible. Using another endpoint is really annoying, I already have
> specific stuff for cinder to setup both v1 and v2 endpoint, as v2
> doesn't fully
On 02/21/2016 12:59 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 21 February 2016 at 19:34, Jay S. Bryant
> >
> wrote:
>
> Spent some time talking to Sean about this on Friday afternoon and
> bounced back and forth between the two
On 22 February 2016 at 06:40, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> I'd vote for the extra round trip and implementation of caching whenever
> possible. Using another endpoint is really annoying, I already have
> specific stuff for cinder to setup both v1 and v2 endpoint, as v2
> doesn't
On 02/18/2016 11:38 PM, D'Angelo, Scott wrote:
> Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It came up
> at our mid-cycle that we should add a new /v3 endpoint [2]. Discussions on
> IRC have raised questions about this [3]
>
> Please weigh in on the design decision to
: Walter A. Boring IV [mailto:walter.bor...@hpe.com]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:18 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] adding a new /v3 endpoint for
api-microversions
>> But, there are no such clients today. And there is no library that
&
On 21 February 2016 at 19:34, Jay S. Bryant
wrote:
> Spent some time talking to Sean about this on Friday afternoon and bounced
> back and forth between the two options. At first, /v3 made the most sense
> to me ... at least it did at the meetup. With people like
On 02/20/2016 04:42 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 20 Feb 2016 00:21, "Walter A. Boring IV" > wrote:
> Not that I'm adding much to this conversation that hasn't been said
already, but I am pro v2 API, purely because of how painful and
On 20 Feb 2016 00:21, "Walter A. Boring IV" wrote:
> Not that I'm adding much to this conversation that hasn't been said
already, but I am pro v2 API, purely because of how painful and long it's
been to get the official OpenStack projects to adopt the v2 API from v1.
I
But, there are no such clients today. And there is no library that does
this yet. It will be 4 - 6 months (or even more likely 12+) until that's
in the ecosystem. Which is why adding the header validation to existing
v2 API, and backporting to liberty / kilo, will provide really
substantial
On 02/19/2016 11:24 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/19/2016 11:15 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
On 02/19/2016 10:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/18/2016 10:38 AM, D'Angelo, Scott wrote:
Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It
came up at our mid-cycle that we should add
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:28:09AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 02/19/2016 11:20 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:57:38AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> The concern as I understand it is that by extending the v2 API with
> >> microversions the following failure scenario
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 02/19/2016 11:15 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> > On 02/19/2016 10:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 02/18/2016 10:38 AM, D'Angelo, Scott wrote:
> >>> Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It
> >>>
On 02/19/2016 11:20 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:57:38AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>> The concern as I understand it is that by extending the v2 API with
>> microversions the following failure scenario exists
>>
>> If:
>>
>> 1) a client already is using the /v2 API
>> 2) a
On 02/19/2016 11:15 AM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
> On 02/19/2016 10:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 02/18/2016 10:38 AM, D'Angelo, Scott wrote:
>>> Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It
>>> came up at our mid-cycle that we should add a new /v3 endpoint [2].
>>>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:57:38AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> The concern as I understand it is that by extending the v2 API with
> microversions the following failure scenario exists
>
> If:
>
> 1) a client already is using the /v2 API
> 2) a client opt's into using microversions on /v2
> 3)
On 02/19/2016 10:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 02/18/2016 10:38 AM, D'Angelo, Scott wrote:
Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It came up
at our mid-cycle that we should add a new /v3 endpoint [2]. Discussions on IRC
have raised questions about this [3]
Please
On 02/18/2016 10:38 AM, D'Angelo, Scott wrote:
> Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It came up
> at our mid-cycle that we should add a new /v3 endpoint [2]. Discussions on
> IRC have raised questions about this [3]
>
> Please weigh in on the design decision to
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 03:38:39PM +, D'Angelo, Scott wrote:
> Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It came up
> at our mid-cycle that we should add a new /v3 endpoint [2]. Discussions on
> IRC have raised questions about this [3]
>
> Please weigh in on the
Cinder team is proposing to add support for API microversions [1]. It came up
at our mid-cycle that we should add a new /v3 endpoint [2]. Discussions on IRC
have raised questions about this [3]
Please weigh in on the design decision to add a new /v3 endpoint for Cinder for
clients to use when
24 matches
Mail list logo