Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Latest version support #89

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 2, 2015
Merged

Latest version support #89

merged 3 commits into from
Feb 2, 2015

Conversation

nehanarkhede
Copy link
Contributor

Included a type VersionId that validates version specified using the string latest or an integer between [1,2^31-1]. Updated documentation to reflect that. This is a follow-up to and fixes #48

@granders Ready for a review.

@ewencp If you can review the docs to see if the versionId type makes sense, that'll be great. In particular, I'm not sure if we should stick with camel case convention for parameters or json field names for the REST APIs. I'm fine with either as long as it is consistent.

@ewencp
Copy link
Contributor

ewencp commented Jan 31, 2015

@nehanarkhede for field names I'd usually go with underscores since that seems to be common convention for REST APIs, but I'm not sure there's a convention for field types since that's a language-specific issue. I agree that either is fine and I think it looks good as is.

@granders
Copy link
Contributor

granders commented Feb 2, 2015

This looks good.

One question about the concept of latest - since this is inherently a mutable thing, we aren't really providing any consistency guarantees in terms of what a user will see when they query for "latest" right?

I guess in practice the KafkaStoreReader threads will keep all the servers up-to-date, so I don't know if this is worth mentioning in documentation or not.

…string latest or an integer between [1,2^31-1]. Updated documentation to reflect that. This is a follow-up to and fixes #48
@nehanarkhede
Copy link
Contributor Author

@granders Rebased and modified the documentation to explain that. Will merge if you have no further comments.

@granders
Copy link
Contributor

granders commented Feb 2, 2015

@nehanarkhede Looks good, thanks.

nehanarkhede pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 2, 2015
@nehanarkhede nehanarkhede merged commit 62452ff into master Feb 2, 2015
@nehanarkhede nehanarkhede deleted the latest-version-support branch February 2, 2015 19:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update API
3 participants