Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:53 AM Justin Sherrill wrote: > > On 6/20/19 8:02 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dennis Kliban >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill >>> wrote: >>>

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

On 6/20/19 8:02 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dennis Kliban > wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dennis Kliban mailto:dkli...@redhat.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill mailto:jsher...@redh

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill >> wrote: >> >>> If a plugin provided multiple remotes, for example, what would that look >>> like? >>> >>> in your example: >>> >>>

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill > wrote: > >> If a plugin provided multiple remotes, for example, what would that look >> like? >> >> in your example: >> >> -file_remote = fileremotes.remotes_file_file_create(remote_data)+f

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill wrote: > If a plugin provided multiple remotes, for example, what would that look > like? > > in your example: > > -file_remote = fileremotes.remotes_file_file_create(remote_data)+file_remote > = fileremotes.create(remote_data) > > Lets say the fi

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

If a plugin provided multiple remotes, for example, what would that look like? in your example: |-file_remote = fileremotes.remotes_file_file_create(remote_data) +file_remote = fileremotes.create(remote_data) Lets say the file plugin provided some other remote that still synced file content?

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

As i am primarily interested in the usability of the bindings, i am ok with stating, that we know those id's are not uniq anymore, and we know that it does not impose a problem here. It still feels like a dirty hack though. But yes my concerns are addressed. +1 On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:45:56 -0400 D

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

I didn't get a note in my email, but I did see one on in the list archive[0]. So here is my response to it: I agree that we could use modified templates to achieve the same results. However, that means that we will need to modify templates for every language we want to generate bindings in. In bot

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:54:30 -0400 Dennis Kliban wrote: > As pointed out in a recent issue[0], the method names in the bindings > generated from Pulp's OpenAPI schema are unnecessarily verbose. Each > method name corresponds to an Operation Id in the OpenAPI schema. The > Operation Id is also use

[Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

As pointed out in a recent issue[0], the method names in the bindings generated from Pulp's OpenAPI schema are unnecessarily verbose. Each method name corresponds to an Operation Id in the OpenAPI schema. The Operation Id is also used as an HTML anchor in the REST API docs[1]. It is possible to ge