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

[Mike Kolesnik]

----- Original Message -----
> 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?

I vote for fix #2.

I think not only is leaving these fields with some defaults a mistake, but also changing their possible values is breaking the API either way, so if we already breaking the API I think removing the fields entirely is cleaner, and in future if we have request to add fields then we can model them correctly.

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