openstack team mailing list archive

[Julien Danjou <julien.danjou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 20 2011, Brian Waldon wrote:

> Backwards Compatibility
> - At what level do you support backwards compatibility, if at all?

Using major version number as a sign of "we break compatibility" is a
common and a good practice IMHO.

> Unsupported Versions
> - What do you do when a request is made with an unsupported version?

HTTP 406 ?

> With those goals in mind, I would like to propose we adopt the following mechanism:
>
> - Use only major versions
> - Allow backwards incompatibility between major versions

So what's the point of not saying that you may not be breaking
compatibility by adding a minor version usage for just new feature for
example?

> I would love to hear your feedback on this proposal, however, I'm not really
> looking to get into a fight about what's more RESTful ;) I know we already
> have several (slightly different) versioning mechanisms in place, but this
> is something that can't be wrong. There's still a lot to figure out here,
> but I think this is a good subset that we can reach an agreement on. In
> order for OpenStack to be successful, we need to get these foundation pieces
> right!

I'm probably getting a little off-topic here, but what about API
documentation and specification?

I understand that Keystone is using WADL to specify its API, what's the
plan for other OpenStack components?

-- 
Julien Danjou
// eNovance                      http://enovance.com
// ✉ julien.danjou@xxxxxxxxxxxx  ☎ +33 1 49 70 99 81