[Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of logical networks

[Livnat Peer]

On 05/07/12 13:23, Mike Kolesnik wrote:
>> On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
>>>> I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more:
>>>>> delete all unused networks ....
>>>>>
>>> not strong enough use case in my opinion
>>
>> i do see sense in this, and based on my experience of
>> closing ~5 bugs on this for SD and explaining like
>> ~10 times on ML to users why /api/storagedomains/xxx
>> doesn't have <status>, I'm sure it should be done this way
>> as it creates clear differentiation between root-resource
>> and cluster-resource (shared) status.
>>
>>> to add this yet another confusing property.
>>
>> you not adding another property, you fix existent
>> (which was incorrectly used/implemented).
>>
>>>
>>> BTW - If a requirement will get from the field to add properties we
>>> can
>>> do them later why add something we think is not needed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Michael Pasternak
>> RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D
>>
> 
> I think we got a little bit off the topic here, so if you don't mind I would like to see if everyone agrees on this:
> 
> We have at the api/networks collection these properties and their possible values:
>   status - OPERATIONAL, NON_OPERATIONAL
>   display - true, false
> 
> We (as far as I understood) agreed that these fields causea problem in this context since they can be different for a given network, and current representation will return the network element multiple times with only difference in either one of these fields.
> Also I understood we agreed that this is bad behaviour (even a bug) and we don't want to support this anymore.
> 
> This gives 2 choices IMHO:
>   1. Fix the behaviour but keep the fields with some default values.
>   2. Fix the behaviour and remove these field as well, which isn't really breaking an API since the behaviour was broken to begin with.
> 

So a summary of the thread so far:

Simon, Miki Ori and me voted +1 for option #2

Michael wants to change the value of the status field to attach/detach

Anyone else wants to vote in on this?


> Please comment what option seems valid (I though we were going to the direction of fix #2).
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
>