libcloud-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <p...@querna.org>
Subject Re: [libcloud] "extended" APIs
Date Tue, 04 May 2010 23:03:09 GMT
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Paul Querna <paul@querna.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Ian Bicking <ianbicking@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Paul Querna <paul@querna.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Right now we have several drivers that have more API calls available,
>>> than what is in the standardized libcloud API.
>>>
>>> I think we should embrace these, and let drivers be more useful to
>>> people, and if there is ever enough drivers doing something, we should
>>> move the function to a 'standard' API.
>>>
>>> I think they do need to be clear to a user/developer that a specific
>>> API is an extension though, and isn't reliable between different
>>> providers, so I believe we should require two things:
>>>  * All extensions have a specific prefix.  For example "ex_", would
>>> mean, "ex_resize_node".
>>>  * In the documentation for an extension function, it should include
>>> something like:
>>>        @warning This is a non-standard extension API, and only works
>>> for driver X.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Seems reasonable.  Should this also be extended to non-standard arguments to
>> standard methods?
>
> +1, definitely, that hadn't occurred to me, but that is one of the
> pain points we have felt a few times with some drivers and
> non-standard arguments.
>

I've done this in trunk, and I believe I've updated all of the
driver's create_node docs to include their extensions.

It was lots of string moving, but all the tests pass, but lemme know
if you notice any regressions.

Thanks,

Paul

Mime
View raw message