cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ahmad Emneina <aemne...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] [DISCUSS] Deprecate CloudStack apis and api server
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:46:58 GMT
+1 on deprecation while bringing in the new. Does this avert the need for a
major version increment, or is this a big enough feature to warrant the big
five oh?


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Prasanna Santhanam <tsp@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 01:35:58AM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
> wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I hate to be the pedantic REST guy, but I think there is a
> > > different worth noting between PUT and POST.  POST [1] should be
> > > used for operations where the server will provide the identity of
> > > the resource where PUT [2] is intended for operations where the
> > > client will provide the identity of the resource.  While I know it
> > > has become common practice to combine these two methods, I think
> > > that it weakens the API intent and contract.  In the CloudStack
> > > model, it seems to me that POST operations would create resources
> > > (e.g. a new VM definition) where the server will return the
> > > resource's identity (e.g. a UUID) as part of the response.  A PUT
> > > operation would mutate an existing resource (e.g. change the
> > > definition of a VM identified by a particular UUID).
> > >
> >
> > I hear you and if we'll do it, we'll do it the right way this time.
> >
>
> +1 - good to know the POST/PUT difference
>
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.5
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.6
> > >
> --
> Prasanna.,
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message