You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> on 2014/05/02 20:22:50 UTC

[ACS5.0][DISCUSS][API] revising call structure and other backward incompatabilities

People,

There are several features in the API that different people want to revise.

1 the calls that use sensitive data using a http-get. When security is
needed this hurts and should be disabled (being by configuration or
altogether)
2 list* API calls interpret the name parameter in a non-consistent
way. some use "name = <name>" others use "name like '%<name>%'"
3 the way maps and lists are passed is not standard and has different
implementations.

these are just the examples from the top of my head. There are bound
to be others. It seems to me it is time to start work on a definition
of how the 5.0 API should look.

any takers?

-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS5.0][DISCUSS][API] revising call structure and other backward incompatabilities

Posted by Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>.
+1

In working IAM feature, we realized that we have very inconsistent
interpretations on the same parameters (i.e. listAll, isRecursive,
account, domainId, etc) in different list and operational APIs, which
render granting almost impossible without breaking some backward
compatibility. We really need to start thinking about new APIs.

Thanks
-min

On 5/2/14 11:22 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:

>People,
>
>There are several features in the API that different people want to
>revise.
>
>1 the calls that use sensitive data using a http-get. When security is
>needed this hurts and should be disabled (being by configuration or
>altogether)
>2 list* API calls interpret the name parameter in a non-consistent
>way. some use "name = <name>" others use "name like '%<name>%'"
>3 the way maps and lists are passed is not standard and has different
>implementations.
>
>these are just the examples from the top of my head. There are bound
>to be others. It seems to me it is time to start work on a definition
>of how the 5.0 API should look.
>
>any takers?
>
>-- 
>Daan