[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 REST API Challenges

[Dana Walker]

I agree on these issues being sound and worth resolving.  I would much
prefer we maintain a truly RESTful API if possible. +1 resuming particular
solution discussion.

--Dana

Dana Walker

Associate Software Engineer

Red Hat

<https://www.redhat.com>
<https://red.ht/sig>

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Austin, Dennis, and Milan have identified the following issues with
> current Pulp3 REST API design:
>
>    - Action endpoints are problematic.
>    - Example POST@/importers/<plugin>/sync/
>       - They are non-RESTful and would make client code tightly coupled
>       with the server code.
>       - These endpoints are inconsistent with the other parts of the REST
>       API.
>       - DRF is not being used as intended for action endpoints so we have
>       to implement extra code. (against the grain)
>    - We don't have a convention for where plug-in-specific, custom
>    repository version creation endpoints.
>    - example POST@/api/v3/<where?>/docker/add/
>       - needs to be discoverable through the schema
>    - For direct repository version creation, plugins are not involved.
>    - validation correctness problem: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541
>       - example: POST@/api/v3/repositories/<repository_id>/versions/
>
> We would like to get feedback on these issues being sound and worth
> resolving before we resume particular solution discussion[1].
>
> Thanks,
> Austin, Dennis, and Milan
>
> [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2018-March/msg00066.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180409/d74f7c28/attachment.htm>