cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] DeployVirtualMachine userdata enhancements
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:48:46 GMT
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Koushik Das <koushik.das@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ram Ganesh [mailto:Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:06 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] DeployVirtualMachine userdata enhancements
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com] On
>> Behalf
>> > Of Rohit Yadav
>> > Sent: 30 January 2013 10:30
>> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] DeployVirtualMachine userdata enhancements
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Nitin Mehta <Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Good point Rohit, but I suggest making only those API's POST which
>> > create
>> > > a resource (like deployVm here) and not all of them.
>> >
>> > > Ideally, we need to be using the right http methods for a true
>> > restful web
>> > > service.
>> >
>> > Nice suggestion, while we can use GET for all read/list apis and POST
>> > for rest kind of apis would work; so we should use correct HTTP
>> > request type, for example for general crud apps:
>> >
>> > create apis: POST
>> > list/read apis: GET
>> > update apis: PUT or POST
>> > delete apis: DELETE or POST
>> >
>> Per HTTP specs for update api we could use PUT. For delete apis we could
>> stick with DELETE. That is true REST.
>>
>
> CS has explicit APIs to update/delete entities. In case of PUT/DELETE there is no need
to pass any api name as long as the entity can be uniquely identified.
>
>>
>>
>> > > Also about the length part, how then we allow user data to be of
>> > > size
>> > 2kb
>> > > currently ?
>> >
>> > It's was a known issue, while it would work with most modern age
>> > browsers this was paid less attention. As Mice suggests, should we
>> > increase length of tags?
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On 30/01/13 9:43 AM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhaisaab@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>+1 But if we are sending base64 encoded userdata as part of POST, we
>> > >>can increase the limit even further.
>> > >>
>> > >>-1 If userdata will be sent as part of GET query, based on the rfc
>> > [1]
>> > >>and from the widely used ugliest web browser [2] the GET url length
>> > >>should be <= 2000 (we're already exceeding that how we send userdata
>> > >>request at present).
>> > >>
>> > >>Suggestion: Make POST as the default way of requesting apis from
>> > >>mgmt server.
>> > >>
>> > >>[1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2616.html
>> > >>[2] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q208427
>> > >>
>> > >>Regards.
>> > >>
>> > >>On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Hari Kannan
>> > >><hari.kannan@citrix.com>
>> > >>wrote:
>> > >>> Hello All,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I wish to propose increasing the size of userdata to be passed
>> > along
>> > >>>with DeployVirtualMachine API - I have added some info here
>> >
>> >>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/DeployVirtua
>> > >>>l
>> > Machi
>> > >>>ne+userdata+enhancements
>> > >>>  along with a JIRA ticket
>> > >>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1086
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Please review and comment
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Hari Kannan
>> > >
>

Does this proposal (and the technical discussion above) mean that we
want our next feature release to break backward compatibility with 4.0
(and soon 4.1)?  If so, can someone please start a specific discuss
thread about that (elevating the decision from being tied to a
specific feature)?

Mime
View raw message