OpenStack Object Storage (swift)

Regarding Swift API

Asked by Mijeom Kim

Hi,

I have confirmed from the previous question that Swfit API is compatible with the RackSpace CloudFiles API.
But, I was wondering that which Swift version applies to the cloudFiles API (http://github.com/rackspace/python-cloudfiles/tree) (not Austin for sure). I realized that some Swift APIs such as "POST" request for Account and Container are not supported by CloudFiles. So is there any document that summarizes the Swift API for each version? Or document that specifies the differences between Swift API and CloudFiles API?

Thanks in advance.

Mijeom.

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
OpenStack Object Storage (swift) Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Mijeom Kim
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
John Dickinson (notmyname) said : 		#1

Currently, swift 1.0 is API compatible with Cloud Files. We will be upgrading Cloud Files to the latest version of swift, but , because it's running with live customer data, we have to be careful about scheduling upgrade windows.

Currently, Cloud Files doesn't support anything that has been added to swift since version 1.0

Revision history for this message
Mijeom Kim (mijeom) said : 		#2

Thank you for your kind response.
In that case, is there any documents or pages I can refer for current API of Swift (Austin Release) compared to CloudFiles'?

Cheers!!

Revision history for this message
gholt (gholt) said : 		#3

I don't know of any comparison documentation. That's on our to do list: client api documentation

Revision history for this message
gholt (gholt) said : 		#4

If you're just looking for what Rackspace Cloud Files supports, here is the documentation for that: http://docs.rackspacecloud.com/files/api/v1/cf-devguide-20100806.pdf

It includes Rackspace's CDN offerings as well as other items that don't quite make sense from an OpenStack Swift perspective.

Revision history for this message
Mijeom Kim (mijeom) said : 		#5

Thanks, I am looking forward to the client api documentation.