openstack team mailing list archive

[Sandy Walsh <sandy.walsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So, isn't that what every client library does, return a native language object? How is this different?

Or are we just saying "let's make a client library for each major language."? As opposed to requiring the user to write their own?

-S
________________________________________
From: Michael Mayo [mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Crazy Idea for API Formats

On Mar 4, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

> Interesting ... do I get back an instance object or just a key/value dict?

I'm thinking an actual instance object.  And we would provide code for that.  Like, if someone was getting instances, they could download my Obj-C Server class and use that.

> Is the attraction not having complex/multi-package client libraries to import?

The attraction is reducing the need to parse data on the client (like JSON does for Javascript developers).  Also, I just thought it would be cool :)

> If the client was: obvious to download, easy to install/update and had a full object model ... would that be better?

That would be nice.  I don't think this is something we absolutely must do or anything; I just thought it would be a very nice convenience for developers using various languages.

> -S
>


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail
at abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, and delete the original message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.