I think that both ways of doing this should be supported.
Decorated private methods make sense if the different microversions
have nicely interchangeable bits of functionality but not if one of
the private methods would have to be a no-op. A method which just
passes is noise. Additionally there
Oops, thanks, I abandoned my one.
2015-03-16 17:09 GMT+08:00 Chen CH Ji jiche...@cn.ibm.com:
oops, duplication ... I submitted changes to spec after got this info
since it make sense to me ...
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164229/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164234/
Best Regards!
2015-03-16 12:26 GMT+08:00 Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com:
So ultimately I think this is a style issue rather than a technical one. I
think there
are situations where one way looks clearer than another the other way
does. Sorry I can't get around to putting up a couple of examples,
ATM
oops, duplication ... I submitted changes to spec after got this info since
it make sense to me ...
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164229/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164234/
Best Regards!
Kevin (Chen) Ji 纪 晨
Engineer, zVM Development, CSTL
Notes: Chen CH Ji/China/IBM@IBMCN Internet:
2015-03-13 19:10 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net:
On 03/13/2015 02:55 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
Hi,
I'm having an issue with microversions.
The api_version() code has a comment saying This
So ultimately I think this is a style issue rather than a technical one. I
think there
are situations where one way looks clearer than another the other way does.
Sorry I can't get around to putting up a couple of examples,
ATM but to be clear there is no difference in the end result (no different
2015-03-16 9:48 GMT+08:00 Alex Xu sou...@gmail.com:
2015-03-13 19:10 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net:
On 03/13/2015 02:55 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
Hi,
I'm having an issue with microversions.
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
Hi,
I'm having an issue with microversions.
The api_version() code has a comment saying This decorator MUST appear
first (the outermost decorator) on an API method for it to work correctly
I tried making a
I posted same question below yesterday, not sure why it's not posted in the
list ...
Best Regards!
Kevin (Chen) Ji 纪 晨
Engineer, zVM Development, CSTL
Notes: Chen CH Ji/China/IBM@IBMCN Internet: jiche...@cn.ibm.com
Phone: +86-10-82454158
Address: 3/F Ring Building, ZhongGuanCun Software
On 03/13/2015 02:55 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
Hi,
I'm having an issue with microversions.
The api_version() code has a comment saying This decorator MUST appear
first (the outermost decorator) on an API
Hi,
I'm having an issue with microversions.
The api_version() code has a comment saying This decorator MUST appear first
(the outermost decorator) on an API method for it to work correctly
I tried making a microversioned static class method like this:
@wsgi.Controller.api_version(2.4)
On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
Hi,
I'm having an issue with microversions.
The api_version() code has a comment saying This decorator MUST appear
first (the outermost decorator) on an API method for it to work correctly
I tried making a microversioned static class method
Know it's a little bit tricky but from
doc/source/devref/api_microversions.rst,
can we make _version_specific_func static function thought it's not
required or we can explicitly suggest not to do so...
91 @api_version(2.1, 2.4)
92 def _version_specific_func(self, req, arg1):
93
2015-03-13 2:13 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net:
On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
Hi,
I'm having an issue with microversions.
The api_version() code has a comment saying This decorator MUST appear
first (the outermost decorator) on an API method for it to work
14 matches
Mail list logo
