2:09 p.m.
On 18/04/12 13:36, Einav Cohen wrote:
[Top Posting]
Let's try to concentrate on the subject of this thread (we can discuss shared disks
in a separate thread):
- I agree with Ori: Disks root collection should have all disks, not only floating
(shared?) disks. Disk is an important business entity, which "deserves" a full
root collection of its own - I think it is more aligned with the existing api structure
(VMs are shown both in the VMs root collection as well as under their Cluster/DC).
+1
- Regarding possibilities 1 vs. 2 below: I prefer #1 (again - agreeing with Ori, IIRC):
Although risky in a sense, at least existing users/scripts won't be harmed because of
this, since the behavior is backward compatible. Regarding new users - they should know
what they are doing, and they should always be careful when using DELETE, no matter from
which context. It also "looks" better (more symmetrical, adding a new POST
action is avoided).
I find option one confusing, I prefer #2.
Does anyone have an idea how to model detach and attach as PUT (update)
operation instead of DELETE(remove) and POST(add).
Pros: - we avoid confusing delete disk with detach disk
- symmetrical (for attach detach)
Cons: - not sure we have this approach in other places in the API
- is it confusing for the user?
Livnat
Comments?
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ori Liel" <oliel(a)redhat.com>
> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> Cc: "Eoghan Glynn" <eglynn(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 3:33:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Floating Disks implementation in REST-API
>
> I'd like us to move forward with this.
>
> The option of using 'attach' action does not exist, because, as
> Eoghan observed, we would be executing an action on an entity which
> doesn't exist in the collection: (.../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/???-no
> entity-???/attach)
>
> There are two options left on the table; let's see if we can agree on
> one of them:
>
> 1)
> POST/api/vms/{vm:id}/disks
> <disk id="{disk:id}"/> =>
> attach disk
>
> DELETE .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}
> <disk><detach>true</detach><disk>
=>
> detach disk
>
> Pros: symmetrical
> Cons: risky (if user wants to detach but forgot to give parameter,
> disk will be deleted).
>
> 2)
>
> POST/api/vms/{vm:id}/disks
> <disk id="{disk:id}"/> =>
> attach disk
>
> DELETE .../api/vms/{vm:id}/disks/{disk:id}/detach =>
> detach disk
>
> Pros: not dangerous
> Cons: asymmetrical, attach done like add, but detach done using
> action.
>
>
> No solution is perfect but we need to decide.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ori.
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel