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

[Moti Asayag]

On 07/05/2012 01:38 PM, Livnat Peer wrote:
> 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?
> 

+1 for #2. It will simplify the presentation of the networks on DC level.

> 
>> Please comment what option seems valid (I though we were going to the direction of fix #2).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel