[katello-devel] Foreman-api

[Dmitri Dolguikh]

On 24/08/12 03:57 PM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 10:52 AM, Jason Rist wrote:
>> On 08/24/2012 10:50 AM, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
>>> On 24/08/12 03:38 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:01:16AM +0100, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm about to add api bindings for environments to Foreman API, but
>>>>> was wondering about the goals of that [sub]-project. In particular,
>>>>> why did we choose to create our own code instead of using Rails
>>>>> ActiveResource (did anyone looked if there are still issues with
>>>>> Oauth when using ActiveResource)? Another one is why do we perform
>>>>> client side validation of parameters?
>>>> The right question is maybe - why we started coding 
>>>> resource/pulp.rb and
>>>> resource/candlepin.rb huge files with all the methods there? ;-)
>>> They started small. It's pretty easy to break them up (we should) - 
>>> each
>>> file is a collection of classes corresponding to resources on
>>> pulp/candlepin server. I'd like to see if we can switch to
>>> ActiveResource though - perhaps it's viable now. Ohad - have you looked
>>> at this lately?
>>>
>>> -d
>>>>
>>>> Any outcomes so far?
>>>>
>>>> LZ
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> katello-devel mailing list
>>> katello-devel at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
>>
>>
>> OpenShift is primarily using ActiveResource.
>
> If I recall, ActiveResource assumes a rather rails centric json view. 
> It it works, rgeat. If not, you end up monkey patching alot.
Hmm. I remember issues with OAuth and not-very-restful urls (I don't 
remember any json issues though). Perhaps those have been solved/made 
manageable?

-d
>
> -- bk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> katello-devel mailing list
> katello-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel