Re: [libcloud] "extended" APIs

[Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Ian Bicking <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Paul Querna <pa...@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