On 08/26/10 - 11:10:45AM, Ian Main wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 11:49 -0400, Chris Lalancette wrote: > > On 08/24/10 - 12:19:07AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote: > > > diff --git a/src/app/models/instance_event.rb > > > b/src/app/models/instance_event.rb > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..cc1eaa0 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/src/app/models/instance_event.rb > > I think Chris covered everything.. my only question is the use of > 'instance event' for the events.. I'm just wondering if that's the best > name for it. Will we always be logging only events related to instances > here? Are they really 'instance' events or 'job' events, or..? > > Just a thought anyway.. we can leave it for now but I wanted to think > about this a bit.
Yes, this is a good point. We probably just want to call this "condor_event.rb"; that leaves it generic enough to be used for anything we will eventually use condor for. > > Also, are we just feeding the event types directly into the db? Don't > we want to define some constants for them and name them more to our > scheme? eg when the match is done you'll get some kind of event which > we can name INSTANCE_EVENT_MATCH_COMPLETE or such.. Yeah, this is another good point. I was originally thinking we could do the mapping later on when we actually use the data, but I now think it is actually better to do it as we collect it. It should be a pretty minor change, we just need a mapping table from condor event numbers -> aggregator event numbers. -- Chris Lalancette _______________________________________________ deltacloud-devel mailing list deltacloud-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/deltacloud-devel
