Proposed new charm store API

[roger peppe]

On 9 July 2014 16:24, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at canonical.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 14-07-09 11:16 AM, roger peppe wrote:
>> If we need to provide backward compatibility, we could do that in a
>> separate name space without changing the proposed API.
>
> The existing charm-events endpoint requires a revision-id, so it will
> not work when uploads are done directly instead of being ingested from
> a VCS.  Similarly, the "digest" field of charm-info would not be possible.

Indeed, it's not clear how some current charm store features would
fit into a charm store that does not do any of its own ingestion,
but instead relies on clients to upload their own charms.

This is an area we need to resolve more clearly.

  cheers,
    rog.