You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org> on 2013/06/05 15:43:33 UTC
networkACLList
Isn't it redundant to call the API create/list/delete (NetworkACLList)
That expands to create/list/delete-NetworkAccessControlListList?
Should that be a Group/Container instead?
Thanks,
--
Prasanna.,
------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com
Re: networkACLList
Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org>.
ACL Group, ACL container, ACL collection sounds a lot better than ACL
List. "Access Control List List" just reads odd. Feel free to ignore
my nitpick though :)
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 11:11:50AM +0000, Kishan Kavala wrote:
> Preferred API name is NetworkACL, which cannot be used (NetworkACL
> is already used to for items within the List). Now naming the API
> NetworkACLList / Group / Container, when you expand, all of them are
> equally redundant.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:tsp@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 8:03 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: networkACLList
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:43:31PM +0000, Kishan Kavala wrote:
> > > Agree that it is redundant. They should be create/list/delete
> > > NetworkACL. But these API names are already used for rules (ACL
> > > items) within the ACL List.
> > > This cannot be fixed without breaking backward compatibility.
> >
> > I was talking about the new API (NetworkACLList) that groups the
> > NetworkACLs. We can always rename that to something sensible before it
> > gets out and we think about backward compat issues.
> >
> > --
> > Prasanna.,
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Powered by BigRock.com
--
Prasanna.,
------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com
RE: networkACLList
Posted by Kishan Kavala <Ki...@citrix.com>.
Preferred API name is NetworkACL, which cannot be used (NetworkACL is already used to for items within the List). Now naming the API NetworkACLList / Group / Container, when you expand, all of them are equally redundant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:tsp@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 8:03 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: networkACLList
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:43:31PM +0000, Kishan Kavala wrote:
> > Agree that it is redundant. They should be create/list/delete
> > NetworkACL. But these API names are already used for rules (ACL
> > items) within the ACL List.
> > This cannot be fixed without breaking backward compatibility.
>
> I was talking about the new API (NetworkACLList) that groups the
> NetworkACLs. We can always rename that to something sensible before it
> gets out and we think about backward compat issues.
>
> --
> Prasanna.,
>
> ------------------------
> Powered by BigRock.com
Re: networkACLList
Posted by Prasanna Santhanam <ts...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:43:31PM +0000, Kishan Kavala wrote:
> Agree that it is redundant. They should be create/list/delete
> NetworkACL. But these API names are already used for rules (ACL
> items) within the ACL List.
> This cannot be fixed without breaking backward compatibility.
I was talking about the new API (NetworkACLList) that groups the
NetworkACLs. We can always rename that to something sensible before it
gets out and we think about backward compat issues.
--
Prasanna.,
------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com
RE: networkACLList
Posted by Kishan Kavala <Ki...@citrix.com>.
Agree that it is redundant. They should be create/list/delete NetworkACL. But these API names are already used for rules (ACL items) within the ACL List.
This cannot be fixed without breaking backward compatibility.
________________________________________
From: Pranav Saxena [pranav.saxena@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:40 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: networkACLList
+1 to this .
Sounds more logical and easy to differentiate from an end user perspective as we are actually creating a container/group of acl rules there.
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:tsp@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:14 PM
To: CloudStack Dev
Subject: networkACLList
Isn't it redundant to call the API create/list/delete (NetworkACLList)
That expands to create/list/delete-NetworkAccessControlListList?
Should that be a Group/Container instead?
Thanks,
--
Prasanna.,
------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com
RE: networkACLList
Posted by Pranav Saxena <pr...@citrix.com>.
+1 to this .
Sounds more logical and easy to differentiate from an end user perspective as we are actually creating a container/group of acl rules there.
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasanna Santhanam [mailto:tsp@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:14 PM
To: CloudStack Dev
Subject: networkACLList
Isn't it redundant to call the API create/list/delete (NetworkACLList)
That expands to create/list/delete-NetworkAccessControlListList?
Should that be a Group/Container instead?
Thanks,
--
Prasanna.,
------------------------
Powered by BigRock.com