cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][QUESTION] Map parameters in API Commands
Date Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:13:36 GMT
I suppose its also worth pointing out that the api params and how we
pass them around internally are two separate things. It's easy to just
add a new custom api parameter and then put it into the details map
(or an object) to be passed around, and it provides a much better user
experience from the API consumer's perspective as the parameters are
documented as normal and the user doesn't have to deal with parameters
inside parameters. Most of the other parameter maps seem to have
related info, such as serviceproviderlist, networksids, or the
resource tags map.  The new details map for deployVirtualMachine just
seems like a place to put random parameters so that we don't have to
keep adding them explicitly, especially given that they're not all
persisted in the user_vm_details table. It might be nice to consider
more targeted maps such as 'serviceofferingdetails' which would
contain related parameters that could override service offerings such
as cpu, memory, and a separate map for 'diskofferingdetails' that
could override iops and other disk attributes, to be reused on
createVolume API. rootdisksize doesn't fit, as there's currently no
root size on service offering, but we could in the future add a 'min
root size' attribute into the service offering that would override the
template size if it were larger than the selected template.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, we'd have to leave the current one intact, but allow the other as well.
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> i don't  know if this is still valid, but there was one more parameter disksize which
which specifies the disk size for data disks.
>> I would prefer adding both the root disk size and disk size to the details map. ideally
we should also change the name disksize to
>> dataDisksize to remove confusion but this might break backward compatibility.
>>
>> Adding them to a map will be intuitive as we already use a map to specify any custom
parameters related to VM.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bharat.
>>
>> On 10-Mar-2014, at 10:57 pm, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is valid, as I've implemented it. So we need to decide if we're
>>> using 'details' or rootdisksize as an api param. That's why I'm
>>> asking.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com>
wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> the roodiskresize is no longer valid. as there is no code which is using
rootdiskresize currently.
>>>>
>>>> As a part of the custom service offering we had to enable specifying custom
values to parameters cpu, memory and cpuCores.
>>>> instead of adding a parameter for each of these values we changed it use
a details map.  This will also not require any further
>>>> changes in the API if we need to add some more custom values in future.
>>>>
>>>> On 08-Mar-2014, at 1:42 am, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestion? Do we go forward assuming that the correct parameter
>>>>> for resize on deploy is:
>>>>>
>>>>> deployVirtualMachine&details[0].rootdisksize=3
>>>>>
>>>>> or do we change it to
>>>>>
>>>>> deployVirtualMachine&rootdisksize=3
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ok, sounds like there needs to be some work done to make these more
>>>>>> consistent, perhaps. Can you comment on why rootdisksize was made
from
>>>>>> a parameter into a part of the details map?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar@citrix.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi ALL,
>>>>>>> There are many other APIs that use Map like createNetworkOffering,
>>>>>>> updateZone, createTemplate, in most of the cases we do not
>>>>>>> say how to use maps, one way would be to write this in the description
or to
>>>>>>> use the same way to access maps of all APIs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW the way to use details in deploy vm API is
>>>>>>> details[0].foo=bar&details[1].baz=12 where foo and baz are
keys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also  if we want to use the regix protected static final String
>>>>>>> MAP_KEY_PATTERN_EXPRESSION = "^([^\\[^\\]]+)\\[(\\d+)\\]\\.key$";
>>>>>>>                                                  protected static
final
>>>>>>> String MAP_VALUE_PATTERN_EXPRESSION = "^[^\\[^\\]]+\\[\\d+\\]\\.value$";
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wil this work in the following case. I believe service is the
key here which
>>>>>>> repeats.
>>>>>>> http://10.147.59.119:8080/client/api?command=createNetworkOffering&response=json&sessionkey=/kGFJDXFmMQU8JZnnC7QFfj3tV8=&name=bharat&displayText=bharat&guestIpType=Isolated&lbType=publicLb&
>>>>>>> servicecapabilitylist[0].service=SourceNat&servicecapabilitylist[0].capabilitytype=SupportedSourceNatTypes&
>>>>>>> servicecapabilitylist[0].capabilityvalue=peraccount&
>>>>>>> servicecapabilitylist[1].service=lb&servicecapabilitylist[1].capabilitytype=SupportedLbIsolation&
>>>>>>> servicecapabilitylist[1].capabilityvalue=dedicated&availability=Optional&egresspolicy=ALLOW&state=Creating&status=Creating&allocationstate=Creating&supportedServices=Vpn,Dhcp,Dns,Firewall,Lb,UserData,SourceNat,StaticNat,PortForwarding&specifyIpRanges=false&specifyVlan=false&isPersistent=false&conservemode=false&serviceProviderList[0].service=Vpn&serviceProviderList[0].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[1].service=Dhcp&serviceProviderList[1].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[2].service=Dns&serviceProviderList[2].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[3].service=Firewall&serviceProviderList[3].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[4].service=Lb&serviceProviderList[4].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[5].service=UserData&serviceProviderList[5].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[6].service=SourceNat&serviceProviderList[6].provider=JuniperSRX&serviceProviderList[7].service=StaticNat&serviceProviderList[7].provider=JuniperSRX&serviceProviderList[8].service=PortForwarding&serviceProviderList[8].provider=JuniperSRX&egressdefaultpolicy=true&traffictype=GUEST&_=1393925230248
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04-Mar-2014, at 2:30 am, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Along these lines, the details parameter in deployVirtualMachine
seems
>>>>>>> broken. If I call "details[0].key=foo,details[0].value=bar",
it stores
>>>>>>> entries in the database like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> id | vmid | name | value         | display
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 12 | 25   |  value | bar               | 1
>>>>>>> 13 | 25   |  key   | foo               | 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems as though this might be correct per Alena's email, but
I
>>>>>>> don't understand how this can be reconstructed into foo=bar when
>>>>>>> there's no binding between the two rows. Perhaps details are
supposed
>>>>>>> to be passed differently than the resource tags, because if I
do
>>>>>>> "details[0].foo=bar&details[1].baz=12", I get:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> id | vmid | name | value         | display
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 12 | 25   |  foo    | bar            | 1
>>>>>>> 13 | 25   |  baz   | 12             | 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And indeed there is code utilizing these details already committed
>>>>>>> that expects this format, as deployVirtualMachines getDetails()
only
>>>>>>> seems to pass a correct Map<String, String> with Key, Value
if I use
>>>>>>> this format.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios
>>>>>>> <antonio.fornie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alena,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, the API will not have any changes. This is not a functional
>>>>>>> change, just some refactoring. The problem is there are many
things in CS
>>>>>>> that really need some refactoring otherwise the problem will
continue
>>>>>>> growing more and more, but doing the change and above all making
sure it
>>>>>>> all works afterwards is not simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will make sure that everything works exactly the same way and
that the
>>>>>>> data returned is also the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers
>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-03-03 18:48 GMT+01:00 Alena Prokharchyk <Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Antonio, sure I will review the patch. But please make sure that
API
>>>>>>> backwards compatibly is intact, otherwise the fix won¹t be accepted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Alena.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/14, 4:31 PM, "Antonio Fornié Casarrubios"
>>>>>>> <antonio.fornie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alena,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reasons for this strange format? I don't know. There doesn't
seem to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> one. After asking on my team and in the dev list I thought perhaps
you
>>>>>>> could know. It seems we all see it strange and nobody knows why.
But of
>>>>>>> course, if it is for reasons I will stop the change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And about the DB, you are right, in the DB is not like I said.
But you can
>>>>>>> have this in a table row field:
>>>>>>> {0={value=Toronto,key=City}}
>>>>>>> for some tables. I think there are two cases:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1- params in wich the get method fixes the params on the fly.
In these of
>>>>>>> course the strange format is not propagated anymore. But this
is still
>>>>>>> wrong: the format itself before the get is invoked, the time
spent on
>>>>>>> fixing something that should be a normal Map from the begining
(each time
>>>>>>> the get method is invoked) and mainly the fact that these get
methods that
>>>>>>> fix the map on the fly are copies of each other: instead of fixing
the
>>>>>>> structure in one method, the are plenty of methods almost identical
>>>>>>> copying
>>>>>>> and pasting the same lines. Some times the same method twice
in the same
>>>>>>> cmd class for two Map params (look CreateNetworkOfferingCmd
>>>>>>> #getServiceCapabilities and #getServiceProviders).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2- params in which the get method returns the map as it is. With
the
>>>>>>> strange format. For example,
>>>>>>> Cloudmonkey command
>>>>>>> create networkoffering ... tags[0].key="City" tags[0].value="Toronto"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You store in the table network_offeringstags, field tags, the
String:
>>>>>>> {0={value=Toronto,key=City}}
>>>>>>> (including brackets and all)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So knowing all this I guess you agree this should be refactored...
unless
>>>>>>> at some point the strange format is needed. But after looking
for it
>>>>>>> everywhere I didn't find any place where it was. I already did
the change
>>>>>>> and tested most of the cases and it all seems to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be great if once I upload the patch somebody could help
me double
>>>>>>> check that it doesn't brake anything, not only reviewing to code.
I did
>>>>>>> plenty of tests of many kinds, but I cannot be sure that I am
covering
>>>>>>> enough. Further, there seem to be several places where the code
expects
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> strange format.
>>>>>>> ->ConfigurationManagerImpl line 1545
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers
>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-02-28 18:44 GMT+01:00 Alena Prokharchyk
>>>>>>> <Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Antonio Fornié Casarrubios <antonio.fornie@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM
>>>>>>> To: Rohit Yadav <rohityadav89@gmail.com>, cloudstack <
>>>>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Alena Prokharchyk <
>>>>>>> alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][QUESTION] Map parameters in API Commands
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alena,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to know your opinion on this change. Mainly consists
on:
>>>>>>> 1- Change the way we store the Map params after unpackParams
in order to
>>>>>>> have, for each Map param, a Map<String, String> instead
of Map<String,
>>>>>>> Map<String, Object>>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Antonio, what was the reason for storing the parameter in the
old
>>>>>>> format to begin with? Where there any case where we actually
needed a
>>>>>>> map
>>>>>>> of map parameters?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2- There are many commands that fix this strange format on demand
on
>>>>>>> their getters, so they do the conversion there. Since I already
have the
>>>>>>> final format I replace these getters with just
>>>>>>> getTags(){ return this.tags;}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3- Persistence of these Map params. This last change is more
tricky and
>>>>>>> error-prone but the previous two would brake the functionality
without
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Actually it doesn't seem that I should change this for all the
cases,
>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>> that for some commands the current behavior is storing in the
DB the
>>>>>>> Map as
>>>>>>> it comes, so after the change it will just do the same and thus
>>>>>>> retrieve it
>>>>>>> with the right format. So, although in the tables we move from
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> key | City
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> value | The Hague
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>> City | The Hague
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then in memory, after DB read, we will just have the proper format
>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>> (Map<String, String>). Is that right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - in what table do you see key name being a field name? I've
looked
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> various *_details tables, as well as resource_tag table, everywhere
>>>>>>> we have
>>>>>>> key/value fields where we store key and the value respectfully:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mysql> desc user_Vm_details;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +---------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
>>>>>>> | Field   | Type                | Null | Key | Default | Extra
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +---------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
>>>>>>> | id      | bigint(20) unsigned | NO   | PRI | NULL    | auto_increment
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | vm_id   | bigint(20) unsigned | NO   | MUL | NULL    |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | name    | varchar(255)        | NO   |     | NULL    |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | value   | varchar(1024)       | NO   |     | NULL    |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | display | tinyint(1)          | NO   |     | 1       |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +---------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
>>>>>>> 5 rows in set (0.01 sec)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mysql> desc resource_tags;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +---------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-----------
>>>>>>> -----+
>>>>>>> | Field         | Type                | Null | Key | Default
| Extra
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +---------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-----------
>>>>>>> -----+
>>>>>>> | id            | bigint(20) unsigned | NO   | PRI | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> auto_increment |
>>>>>>> | uuid          | varchar(40)         | YES  | UNI | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | key           | varchar(255)        | YES  |     | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | value         | varchar(255)        | YES  |     | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | resource_id   | bigint(20) unsigned | NO   | MUL | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | resource_uuid | varchar(40)         | YES  |     | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | resource_type | varchar(255)        | YES  |     | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | customer      | varchar(255)        | YES  |     | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | domain_id     | bigint(20) unsigned | NO   | MUL | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | account_id    | bigint(20) unsigned | NO   | MUL | NULL   
|
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +---------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-----------
>>>>>>> -----+
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4- The last change should be related to any code expecting the
old
>>>>>>> format, that will fail with the new one. I guess UI will be an
example
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> that, but I didn't check yet. If the JS code receives the new
Map
>>>>>>> serialized, then chances are this will break it, right? Can you
tell
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> thoughts on this? Can you tell me places I should check first
to confirm
>>>>>>> this guess?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Its not just about the uI> You should never break the API
backwards
>>>>>>> compatibility. Remember that lots of third party vendors use
our APIs,
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> the UI. As long as we support the old format, introducing the
new one
>>>>>>> shouldn't be a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering it all, do you think this change is worth it? For
me this
>>>>>>> seems to be something that was wrong from the beginning and it
should
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> been changed before the mess got spread. But know, although I
want to
>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>> it, I'm afraid this involves touching too many things in order
to fix
>>>>>>> something that looks horrible but seems to be actually working
and I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> want to break.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers
>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-02-12 23:32 GMT+01:00 Rohit Yadav <rohityadav89@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios
>>>>>>> <antonio.fornie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rohit,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't mean changing the format of the HTTP request, but only
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> changing the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intermediate format in which we keep it in the property of the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Command
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> class. I mentioned the format in the request just to explain
what I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My proposal is to leave the request format as it is, but then
when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> method "apiDispatcher#setFieldValue" parses the map and assign
it to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> property, do it in a normal way: which is a Map<String, String>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Map<String, Map<String, Object>> as it is now. And
then, our getter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (like CreateTagsCommand#GetTag) will be just a normal getter
that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> need to transform the structure on the fly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cool, let's request the present API layer maintainer(s) and other
>>>>>>> folks in the community to comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, cheers
>>>>>>> antonio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-02-11 17:38 GMT+01:00 Rohit Yadav <rohityadav89@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Antonio,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios
>>>>>>> <antonio.fornie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When invoking a CS API command that has parameters of type Map,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>> will be something like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL/api?command=createTags&tags[0].key=region&tags[0].value=canada&tags[
>>>>>>> 1].key=name&tags[1].value=bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in order to send a Map with the pairs:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tags{
>>>>>>> region : "canada",
>>>>>>> name : "bob"
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then in the server side the parameters go through several stages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (IMHO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>> many), and have different formats. At some point
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apiDispatcher#setFieldValue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will assign the value to the command property (CreateTagsCmd#tag
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> example) in a VERY strange way:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CreateTagsCmd#tag = {
>>>>>>> 0 : {
>>>>>>>    "key" : "region",
>>>>>>>    "value" : "canada"
>>>>>>> },
>>>>>>> 1 : {
>>>>>>>    "key" : "name",
>>>>>>>    "value" : "bob"
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is true for several Cmd classes. And the funny thing is
they
>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>> provide a public getter method to get the Map in an already
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "normalized"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> structure. The problem is we have this method again a again in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> these commands, only with different name depending on what
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> get, and the body is almost copy and pasted. so my next
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refactoring
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be to have a generic method only once in BaseCmd so that all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> subclasses
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> reuse it for their Map getters. Pretty obvious, but...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a well know issue and is such a pain, both for the users
of
>>>>>>> the API to create this API and the programmer who have to put
hack
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the backend to extract the map.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it really necessary to have this strange format? Wouldn't
it be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> better to just store it in a more normal way from the beginning,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the getters just standard getters? Does it have any use to have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maps
>>>>>>> of Maps?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changing the API will break many client so no one attempted it
for
>>>>>>> keeping backward-compatibility I think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The HTTP RFC states that if same keys are sent in param they
must be
>>>>>>> received as an array. For example, /api?q=1&q=2&q=3 should
received
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> q
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> = [1,2,3] which is what we're not doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should do that and this way we can capture maps using keys
and
>>>>>>> values in order, so for example,
>>>>>>> /api?q.key1=value1&q.key2=value2&q.key1=value3&q.key2=value4
should
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> received as as array of maps: [{key1: value1, key2: value2},
>>>>>>> {key3:value3, key4: value4}] etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it does not have to be maps of maps, but since our API
is
>>>>>>> query based these ugly hacks were invented. We should definitely
get
>>>>>>> rid of them, and perhaps work on the RESTful API layer, cloud-engine
>>>>>>> and other good stuff we were talking about more than a year ago
and
>>>>>>> deprecate the present query API over next few years. Thoughts,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> flames?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers
>>>>>>> Antonio Fornie
>>>>>>> Schuberg Philis - MCE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message