cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Fwd: jclouds json parsing issue
Date Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:29:34 GMT

On Jan 30, 2013, at 10:17 PM, Rohit Yadav <> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Chip Childers
> <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Rohit Yadav <> wrote:
>>> Did we change the response format to an envelop style?
>>> Cloudstack 3.x
>>> deployvirtualmachineresponse.json : { "deployvirtualmachine" : {"id":1234,
>>> "jobid":50006} }
>>> Cloudstack 4.x
>>> new json response : { "deployvirtualmachineresponse" :
>>> {"id":"1cce6cb7-2268-47ff-9696-d9e610f6619a","jobid":"13330fc9-8b3e-4582-aa3e-90883c041ff0"},
>>> "cloudstack-version": "4.1.0-SNAPSHOT" }
>> It looks like there are two changes...  The name of the returned
>> object (deployvirtualmachine vs deployvirtualmachineresponse), as well
>> as the addition of the cloudstack-version field.
> I've no idea about these changes and how and why they were made?
> Comment or advise anyone?
> I've been maintaining and working on the api layer about past two
> months now and I feel this is the layer which the world talks to and
> my aim is to make sure we keep minimal damages to projects who are
> based on top of CloudStack if that requires us to deprecate it and
> adopt something REST-ful or standardized. This is for future of
> course, I still want feedback and info on the changes as Adrian
> mentions.


I think we are still trying to figure out if this is a real issue, if something got changed
or not.
I will see Charles on Friday and we will go through his workflow, I will check the version
numbers etc and try to figure out what the real issue is.

Your work on API refactoring, while I did not follow all of it :), was terrific.

Long term there should probably be a move to pure REST.


>> -chip
>>> Forwarding comment from jclouds developer Adrian:
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Adrian Cole <>
>>> Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [jclouds] cloudstack renamed deployvirtualmachineresponse in
>>> version 4.1 (#1254)
>>> To: jclouds/jclouds <>
>>> Cc: Bhaisaab <>
>>> @bhaisaab <> another note wrt the envelope style
>>> used in cloudstack. If you are looking to support multiple version
>>> detection, it would be much easier on us and others to use http mechanisms.
>>> typically content mediation is done via headers, rather than wrapping
>>> things in a thing that includes version and starts feeling like SOAP.
>>> making a generator based on your style of doing versions is possible, but
>>> it wouldn't be reusable code. If there's good reason to deviate from ReST
>>> and other similar apis wrt Accept header and/or version headers, please
>>> consider things that you are doing on your own, as making tools that only
>>> work with the cloudstack way isn't enough gain to even use the metadata
>>> service you describe. for example, there are specs like HAL
>>> that at least have a chance of
>>> tooling support. Alternatively, you could go into the REST community and
>>> pitch the way you do things and get others to adopt it. This could also
>>> lead to tooling that isn't bespoke only to cloudstack.
>>> —
>>> Reply to this email directly or view it on
>>> GitHub<>.

View raw message