Greetings,
I have an open PR for removing Katello's v1 APIs: https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this and if we have a migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API's deprecation with some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we're not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue to support these APIs.
If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests? My suggestion would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities show up.
Cheers,
Walden
i agree with your 410 GONE suggestion.
···
----- Original Message -----
> Greetings,
>
> I have an open PR for removing Katello's v1 APIs:
> https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
>
> I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this and if we have a
> migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API's deprecation with
> some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we're
> not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue
> to support these APIs.
>
> If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests? My suggestion
> would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar
> would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead
> to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities
> show up.
>
> Cheers,
> Walden
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
–
We just started looking into Katello as a patch management solution. When
you say that you are no longer supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5,does
this mean there will be no upgrade path from 1.4 to 1.5, or are you only
referring to the API?
However, since we're not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder
···
> if we need to continue to support these APIs.
It's my understanding that we won't be automatically migrating data from 1.4 to 1.5 installations because those systems are so drastically different. The migration from Katello 1.4 to 1.5 includes moving Katello from a standalone rails application to an engine within Foreman.
We may provide manual instructions to migrate certain data if needed.
Cheers,
Walden
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Johnson"
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:48:59 PM
Subject: [foreman-dev] Re: Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
We just started looking into Katello as a patch management solution. When
you say that you are no longer supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5,does
this mean there will be no upgrade path from 1.4 to 1.5, or are you only
referring to the API?
However, since we’re not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder
if we need to continue to support these APIs.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have an open PR for removing Katello's v1 APIs:
>> https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
>>
>> I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this and if we have a
>> migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API's deprecation with
>> some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we're
>> not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue
>> to support these APIs.
>>
>> If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests?
Would these be requests to /api/, /api/v1/, or both? ?
Are we changing the default of just /api/ to v2? If we're doing that
I'm not sure there is much value in a 410 GONE at all as most clients
would be hitting just /api/.
-Justin
···
On 05/16/2014 09:58 AM, Adam Price wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
My suggestion
would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar
would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead
to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities
show up.
Cheers,
Walden
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
i agree with your 410 GONE suggestion.
+1 to removing v1 completely (except for candlepin_proxies and its dependencies).
If for some reason v1 needed to return (I don't know what that reason might be), the proper solution would likely to rewrite all the v1 controllers to extend v2 and substitute new v1 rabl.
···
----- Original Message -----
> It's my understanding that we won't be automatically migrating data from 1.4
> to 1.5 installations because those systems are so drastically different.
> The migration from Katello 1.4 to 1.5 includes moving Katello from a
> standalone rails application to an engine within Foreman.
>
> We may provide manual instructions to migrate certain data if needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Walden
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Johnson"
> To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:48:59 PM
> Subject: [foreman-dev] Re: Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
>
> We just started looking into Katello as a patch management solution. When
> you say that you are no longer supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5,does
> this mean there will be no upgrade path from 1.4 to 1.5, or are you only
> referring to the API?
>
> However, since we're not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder
> > if we need to continue to support these APIs.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
I meant the 410 gone for /api/v1 just in case anyone put that into their URLs. Any requests to /api would route to the v2 controllers.
Walden
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Sherrill"
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:57:07 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/16/2014 09:58 AM, Adam Price wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Greetings,
I have an open PR for removing Katello’s v1 APIs:
https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on this and if we have a
migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API’s deprecation with
some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we’re
not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue
to support these APIs.
If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests?
Would these be requests to /api/, /api/v1/, or both? ?
Are we changing the default of just /api/ to v2? If we’re doing that
I’m not sure there is much value in a 410 GONE at all as most clients
would be hitting just /api/.
-Justin
My suggestion
would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar
would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead
to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities
show up.
Cheers,
Walden
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
i agree with your 410 GONE suggestion.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> It's my understanding that we won't be automatically migrating data from 1.4 to 1.5 installations because those systems are so drastically different. The migration from Katello 1.4 to 1.5 includes moving Katello from a standalone rails application to an engine within Foreman.
>
> We may provide manual instructions to migrate certain data if needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Walden
>
>
> From: "Aaron Johnson" <be170f5aaron@gmail.com>
> To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:48:59 PM
> Subject: [foreman-dev] Re: Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
>
> We just started looking into Katello as a patch management solution. When
> you say that you are no longer supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5,does
> this mean there will be no upgrade path from 1.4 to 1.5, or are you only
> referring to the API?
Sadly yes 
Migrating from a full rails application to a rails engine prevents us
from offering full upgrades. We do plan a transition document though.
This brings up a good point, I'm wondering if we should make it a 2.0
release to help give some indication of incompatibility.
-Justin
···
On 05/19/2014 11:11 AM, Walden Raines wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
However, since we’re not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder
if we need to continue to support these APIs.
> I meant the 410 gone for /api/v1 just in case anyone put that into their URLs. Any requests to /api would route to the v2 controllers.
I'm good with a 410, just not sure it provides much actual value.
-Justin
···
On 05/19/2014 02:59 PM, Walden Raines wrote:
Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: “Justin Sherrill” jsherril@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:57:07 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/16/2014 09:58 AM, Adam Price wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Greetings,
I have an open PR for removing Katello’s v1 APIs:
https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on this and if we have a
migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API’s deprecation with
some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we’re
not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue
to support these APIs.
If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests?
Would these be requests to /api/, /api/v1/, or both? ?
Are we changing the default of just /api/ to v2? If we’re doing that
I’m not sure there is much value in a 410 GONE at all as most clients
would be hitting just /api/.
-Justin
My suggestion
would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar
would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead
to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities
show up.
Cheers,
Walden
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
i agree with your 410 GONE suggestion.
+1. Had the same comment on IRC.
David
···
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin Sherrill"
> To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:59:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Re: Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
>
> On 05/19/2014 11:11 AM, Walden Raines wrote:
> > It's my understanding that we won't be automatically migrating data from
> > 1.4 to 1.5 installations because those systems are so drastically
> > different. The migration from Katello 1.4 to 1.5 includes moving Katello
> > from a standalone rails application to an engine within Foreman.
> >
> > We may provide manual instructions to migrate certain data if needed.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Walden
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Aaron Johnson"
> > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:48:59 PM
> > Subject: [foreman-dev] Re: Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
> >
> > We just started looking into Katello as a patch management solution. When
> > you say that you are no longer supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5,does
> > this mean there will be no upgrade path from 1.4 to 1.5, or are you only
> > referring to the API?
> Sadly yes :(
>
> Migrating from a full rails application to a rails engine prevents us
> from offering full upgrades. We do plan a transition document though.
>
> This brings up a good point, I'm wondering if we should make it a 2.0
> release to help give some indication of incompatibility.
>
> -Justin
>
> > However, since we're not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder
> >> if we need to continue to support these APIs.
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> I'm good with a 410, just not sure it provides much actual value.
If there were people who had used API v1 then either a 404 or a 410 with a message would let them know the older version of the API was gone. Otherwise, if we just route /api/v1 to /api/v2 then the calls would fail in strange and non-obvious ways and the user would have no idea why.
Cheers,
Walden
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Sherrill"
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:00:11 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/19/2014 02:59 PM, Walden Raines wrote:
I meant the 410 gone for /api/v1 just in case anyone put that into their URLs. Any requests to /api would route to the v2 controllers.
I’m good with a 410, just not sure it provides much actual value.
-Justin
Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: “Justin Sherrill” jsherril@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:57:07 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/16/2014 09:58 AM, Adam Price wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Greetings,
I have an open PR for removing Katello’s v1 APIs:
https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on this and if we have a
migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API’s deprecation with
some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we’re
not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue
to support these APIs.
If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests?
Would these be requests to /api/, /api/v1/, or both? ?
Are we changing the default of just /api/ to v2? If we’re doing that
I’m not sure there is much value in a 410 GONE at all as most clients
would be hitting just /api/.
-Justin
My suggestion
would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar
would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead
to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities
show up.
Cheers,
Walden
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
i agree with your 410 GONE suggestion.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> I'm good with a 410, just not sure it provides much actual value.
> If there were people who had used API v1 then either a 404 or a 410 with a message would let them know the older version of the API was gone. Otherwise, if we just route /api/v1 to /api/v2 then the calls would fail in strange and non-obvious ways and the user would have no idea why.
>
> Cheers,
> Walden
Yeah, that's kinda my point, I doubt anyone is actually using /api/v1/.
AFAIK most everything that was coded against the v1 api was using /api/
(and not /api/v1), so the majority of v1 users won't see the 410
regardless and will simply hit the 'failure in strange and non-obvious
ways'. I'm not opposed to the 410, but if it only accommodates a small
minority of v1 api users, is it worth it?
-Justin
···
On 05/19/2014 04:30 PM, Walden Raines wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: “Justin Sherrill” jsherril@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:00:11 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/19/2014 02:59 PM, Walden Raines wrote:
I meant the 410 gone for /api/v1 just in case anyone put that into their URLs. Any requests to /api would route to the v2 controllers.
I’m good with a 410, just not sure it provides much actual value.
-Justin
Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: “Justin Sherrill” jsherril@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:57:07 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/16/2014 09:58 AM, Adam Price wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Greetings,
I have an open PR for removing Katello’s v1 APIs:
https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on this and if we have a
migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API’s deprecation with
some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we’re
not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue
to support these APIs.
If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests?
Would these be requests to /api/, /api/v1/, or both? ?
Are we changing the default of just /api/ to v2? If we’re doing that
I’m not sure there is much value in a 410 GONE at all as most clients
would be hitting just /api/.
-Justin
My suggestion
would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar
would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead
to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities
show up.
Cheers,
Walden
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
i agree with your 410 GONE suggestion.
> I'm not opposed to the 410, but if it only accommodates a small
minority of v1 api users, is it worth it?
Currently, no, it's probably not worth it.
It may be worth it in the future though if we have two widely used versions of an API out there at the same time and decide to deprecate one of them.
For now I just went with removing the v1 routes file and making v2 the default (i.e. /api and /api/v2 are the same).
Cheers,
Walden
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Sherrill"
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 4:54:02 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/19/2014 04:30 PM, Walden Raines wrote:
I’m good with a 410, just not sure it provides much actual value.
If there were people who had used API v1 then either a 404 or a 410 with a message would let them know the older version of the API was gone. Otherwise, if we just route /api/v1 to /api/v2 then the calls would fail in strange and non-obvious ways and the user would have no idea why.
Cheers,
Walden
Yeah, that’s kinda my point, I doubt anyone is actually using /api/v1/.
AFAIK most everything that was coded against the v1 api was using /api/
(and not /api/v1), so the majority of v1 users won’t see the 410
regardless and will simply hit the ‘failure in strange and non-obvious
ways’. I’m not opposed to the 410, but if it only accommodates a small
minority of v1 api users, is it worth it?
-Justin
----- Original Message -----
From: “Justin Sherrill” jsherril@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:00:11 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/19/2014 02:59 PM, Walden Raines wrote:
I meant the 410 gone for /api/v1 just in case anyone put that into their URLs. Any requests to /api would route to the v2 controllers.
I’m good with a 410, just not sure it provides much actual value.
-Justin
Walden
----- Original Message -----
From: “Justin Sherrill” jsherril@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 2:57:07 PM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecating Katello v1 APIs
On 05/16/2014 09:58 AM, Adam Price wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Greetings,
I have an open PR for removing Katello’s v1 APIs:
https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4098.
I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on this and if we have a
migration strategy. Usually you would announce the API’s deprecation with
some advance warning prior to actually removing it. However, since we’re
not supporting migrations from 1.4 to 1.5, I wonder if we need to continue
to support these APIs.
If not, what response should we return for API v1 requests?
Would these be requests to /api/, /api/v1/, or both? ?
Are we changing the default of just /api/ to v2? If we’re doing that
I’m not sure there is much value in a 410 GONE at all as most clients
would be hitting just /api/.
-Justin
My suggestion
would be 410 GONE with an explanation because a 301 redirect or similar
would be automatically followed by most clients and could potentially lead
to confusion when things start breaking in odd ways as incompatibilities
show up.
Cheers,
Walden
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
i agree with your 410 GONE suggestion.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
