Hi,
Yes. You are correct. IDs remain unique across the table. Usually the IDs in the database are used for the internal operations. In general, they need not be exposed to the user. It is more used by the application itself. That's why it would be better to have an UUID which is specially meant to be used by the user. And also in the large scale environments, where huge number of service templates and instances pour in, they could have uniform identification IDs rather than incremental numbers. And about allowing duplicate names for the service templates and service instances, it is MUST to have it. In multi user and multi tenant applications, the probability of getting the duplicate names is high. So its better to handle it in the initial phase itself. So I would like to know your suggestion and comment on the following three items, 1. Allowing duplicate names for the service templates and service instances 2. Appending UUID to the node instances 3. Identifying the service templates and the service instances by UUIDs (not appended to their names, because that might confuse the user when a list of items are scrolled on) Thanks, /Vaish ________________________________ From: Ran Ziv <r...@cloudify.co> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 4:25:57 PM To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Unique identification of an instance element across services The service name is optional - it may be auto-generated according to the service-template name. The service-template name can also be made optional (see this jira issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-221 ). Regarding the scenario of non-CLI interaction - for any non-human usage, IDs should be used, as they're guaranteed to be unique. I don't see why UUIDs are necessary in this case. On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Vaishnavi K.R <vaishnavi....@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > > In addition to the node instance name, I am concerned about the service > template name and the service instance names. In a wider perspective, there > is high chance for these names to be the same. > > > And as I have already mentioned in previous discussion, its an overhead > for an user to change the name again and again when he encounters the > 'already exist' error. > > > And also when ARIA is used as a TOSCA Orchestration service provider, > manual interaction via CLI won't happen. All operations could be performed > over the HTTP calls. In such scenerio, it would be great and very much > useful, if elements are queried or identified using the UUID. > > > So I see the uniqueness should prevail across the elements like service > templates, service instances and node instances. > > > Thanks, > > /Vaish > > ________________________________ > From: Ran Ziv <r...@cloudify.co> > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 12:12:22 AM > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Unique identification of an instance element across services > > I can't seem to be able to access our JIRA at the moment, but generally > speaking, the CLI currently supports "static completion" only, i.e. it > auto-completes CLI commands but not object names. > We tried implementing dynamic completion (e.g. tab on "-s" would > auto-complete service names from the storage), but we ran into some issues > with the underlying Click framework. > I'm not sure if an issue for trying to implement this further is currently > open on our JIRA. > > Regarding a "partial hash" concept, I don't really find this to be useful > in this case. IMO, as Tal's mentioned, the cases when you need to actually > use these auto-generated long names are rare, and when that happens, > dynamic completion can take care of it well, if we can get it done. > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Thomas Nadeau <tnad...@lucidvision.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 15, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > > > > When do you actually have to ender node names? Probably only in "aria > > nodes > > > show". And in those cases you would be copy-pasting from a list. We > could > > > also improve our CLI completion code to properly complete node IDs. > > > > That sounds like a very useful enhancement. Do we have a Jira > for > > this yet? *) > > > > > I think the serial numbers are more confusing than helpful. Let's say > you > > > currently have 20 difference services running, and they are of various > > > different service templates. But let's say a few service templates have > > > node templates with the same name, "database". You could potentially > > > "database_1" in the list and "database_2", but each one of these nodes > > > would be of a different node template of a different service template. > > The > > > serial number gives the false sense that these two nodes are somehow > > > together. Anyway, we discussed this in much detail already: we all > agree > > > that the serial system is totally broken if you're using more than ARIA > > > install, or even if a few different ARIA users are using the same cloud > > > accounts (each ARIA install could create its own "database_1" -- what > if > > > you have two hosts with that same DNS name?). > > > > I was just going to say the point you made above about DNS name > > overlap. > > It sounds like we need to sit down and re-visit the serial number > > management? > > > > —Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:35 PM, DeWayne Filppi <dewa...@cloudify.co> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I get the feeling that you are more gifted typist than most. Or are > you > > >> saying nobody will ever be required to type in one those IDs? > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Before we allow users to configure this, we have another JIRA to > > resolve: > > >>> actually, we don't have a mechanism for storing configuration yet! > Here > > >> is > > >>> the open JIRA: > > >>> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-229 > > >>> > > >>> As for what to configure in this case, our practice until now was > that > > >> the > > >>> UUID would be added as an underscored postfix of the object's name. > So > > if > > >>> you have a node template named "database" then node instances could > be, > > >>> assuming longest form of UUID (alphanumeric, 36 characters): > > >>> > > >>> database_2d79fd86-0877-49ca-81d8-cd2dc9f7b0e2 > > >>> database_2819972e-3b07-4923-be94-43e95985155f > > >>> database_45b9faf5-8bf4-482a-a570-d1c058270424 > > >>> > > >>> This guarantees names that are universally unique and yet still > > >> meaningful: > > >>> you would be able to tell at a glance what kind of node this is: a > > >>> database. Note that we also have a mechanism in place to warn you if > > the > > >>> final name is more than 63 characters, because such names can't be > used > > >> as > > >>> DNS hostnames (a common usage for node names in the cloud). This > should > > >>> also be configurable. > > >>> > > >>> I don't see why this needs to be abstracted from the user. If you are > > >> using > > >>> the CLI and see the list of nodes, you can refer to the node you are > > >>> examining with the full name as seen above. I think having a separate > > UI > > >>> name such as "database_1", "database_2', etc., would be confusing. > > >>> > > >>> So, assuming the above, I imagine these kinds of configuration vars: > > >>> > > >>> instance.id_type = 'uuid' | 'alphanumeric' | 'base57' (default?) | > > >> 'serial' > > >>> node.id_max_length = 63 > > >>> > > >>> Here are examples of the other types. Alphanumeric (25 characters): > > >>> > > >>> database_t5evps77wp5biqdb1oyw36956 > > >>> database_uw5oa530kn9mu73lzjuech02a > > >>> database_nzv3a7umph0g1093abwq6qjd3 > > >>> > > >>> And base57 (22 characters): > > >>> > > >>> database_g8KV4qpKep2J2uA473fv6X > > >>> database_M2bLkYsToZ52L3HSy7CCmC > > >>> database_q8se9o5fDDWvT53tnnRiXN > > >>> > > >>> My personal preference for the default has always been base57. It is > > both > > >>> the most compact, meaning less of a chance you would hit the 63 > > character > > >>> limit, and also cleverly designed for human readability (no > > >>> visually-ambiguous glyphs). > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Vaishnavi K.R < > > >> vaishnavi....@ericsson.com > > >>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for the update. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> With current ARIA, the utility module to generate the UUID is > > >> available. > > >>>> But the UUID support will also mandate the following changes if my > > >>>> understanding is right, > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. the inclusion of the UUID column in the mapper classes of > > >>> sqlalchemy > > >>>> 2. the model object created should set the value for the UUID and > > >> send > > >>>> it to database > > >>>> > > >>>> For an use case in our product, we badly need this UUID based > element > > >>>> identification. So I look forward to your comments on the following, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. We contribute the UUID support to ARIA without affecting the > > >>> current > > >>>> CLI module i.e. CLI will continue to use the name option. The UUID > > will > > >>> be > > >>>> completely abstracted from the user. > > >>>> 2. Configurable option to use UUID or name based identification. > By > > >>>> default, it will work with the name based identification > > >>>> > > >>>> Also I need clarification on the UUID generation. Currently ARIA > > >> supports > > >>>> four variants. Do we have any standard on how this UUID should be > and > > >>> also > > >>>> on what aspect these four variants are concluded on? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> > > >>>> /Vaish > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> From: Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 8:24:41 PM > > >>>> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org > > >>>> Subject: Re: Unique identification of an instance element across > > >> services > > >>>> > > >>>> We already have utility code to generate all kinds of UUIDs, so it's > > >>>> trivial to make the change. I guess it's just a matter of making a > > >>>> decision... > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Vaishnavi K.R < > > >>> vaishnavi....@ericsson.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I agree that with the CLI based usage in ARIA, the requirement of > the > > >>>> UUID > > >>>>> based identification of the node and service instance elements is > an > > >>>>> overhead. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> From the discussions so far, it seems like UUID is important in > > >>> handling > > >>>>> the multi-user and multi-tenant scenarios. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Do you have any update on when UUID will be considered in the > > >> roadmap? > > >>>>> If its not too far, we would like to make our contribution to ARIA > on > > >>>> UUID. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Looking forward to your response. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> /Vaish > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ________________________________ > > >>>>> From: Avia Efrat <a...@cloudify.co> > > >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 10:35:45 PM > > >>>>> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Unique identification of an instance element across > > >>> services > > >>>>> > > >>>>> First, good arguments from both 'sides'. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am for at least adding a uuid as an option, as ARIA is intended > to > > >> be > > >>>>> used at scale as well. > > >>>>> But currently, I am for the simple ids to be used as default (and > not > > >>>>> uuids). Like it or not, right now ARIA is more at a 'TOSCA > > >> playground' > > >>>>> stage, and I think that's perfectly fine =) > > >>>>> And at this stage, I think simple ids will be better, as they > easier > > >> to > > >>>> use > > >>>>> via the CLI, but more importantly, don't clog the logs with long > > >>>>> meaningless strings. As ARIA matures, we could switch the default > to > > >>>> UUIDs. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> And BTW, as our log format is configurable, there could be other > ways > > >>>> than > > >>>>> UUIDs to distinguish between nodes with the 'same id' in a central > > >>>> logging > > >>>>> system, e.g using the user name as another indicator. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Vaishnavi K.R < > > >>>>> vaishnavi....@ericsson.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks for the active discussion. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Having UUID at the node instance level will just make the nodes > > >>> unique. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> And these names will not be used by the user directly as no > > >>> operations > > >>>>> are > > >>>>>> happening on the node instance name. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> But at the service template and the service level, UUID will be of > > >>>> great > > >>>>>> help considering the multi user and multi tenancy situations. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> So in a large scale perspective, the node names and the service > > >>>> template > > >>>>>> names have high probability of being same. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> When these enter into the automated world, it will create more > > >>> problem > > >>>>>> when name conflicts occur and its adds overhead to make changes > > >> every > > >>>>> time > > >>>>>> to overcome the conflict. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> UUID at service template and the service level: will be of much > use > > >>> in > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> above scenario and operations by user on these are less > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> UUID at node instance level: makes the node much unique and no > > >>>> operation > > >>>>>> happens on it > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> /Vaish > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> ________________________________ > > >>>>>> From: Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> > > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:48:40 PM > > >>>>>> To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Unique identification of an instance element across > > >>>> services > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I just don't see users having to deal much with node IDs outside > of > > >>>>> simple > > >>>>>> hello-world style tutorials, and I'd hate for the first > impressions > > >>>> that > > >>>>>> users get out of ARIA is that it's just a playground for TOSCA. It > > >>>> should > > >>>>>> be ready out-of-the-box for the real world. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:13 AM, DeWayne Filppi < > > >> dewa...@cloudify.co > > >>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Such is their strength. I'm just advocating using them as a last > > >>>>> resort > > >>>>>>> because they are user unfriendly and gigantic. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Let's consider a mass deployment: thousands of service > > >> instances > > >>> of > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> same service template, created by many different users with > > >> their > > >>>> own > > >>>>>>> ARIA > > >>>>>>>> installations (and databases). In that case, assuming we use > > >>>>> sequential > > >>>>>>>> IDs, you would have the same node ID appear many times. You > > >> would > > >>>>> have > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> identify it via the particular user and service instance. If > > >>> you're > > >>>>>>>> centralizing logs, this can quickly be cumbersome. A UUID will > > >>>>> identify > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>> globally and avoid any confusion. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I think the default should be something that avoids such > > >>> problems. > > >>>>> For > > >>>>>>>> users who insist on shorter IDs, we can allow them to configure > > >>> it. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:42 PM, DeWayne Filppi < > > >>>> dewa...@cloudify.co > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> True uuids are seductive, because of their simplicity. But > > >>> they > > >>>>> are > > >>>>>>>> huge, > > >>>>>>>>> overkill, and meaningless. Imho a structured id is superior > > >> if > > >>>> it > > >>>>>> can > > >>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>> made to work without a global locking scheme. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> - DeWayne > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 25, 2017 12:11 PM, "Tal Liron" <t...@cloudify.co> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> It's not an issue of thread safety -- it could be entirely > > >>>>>> different > > >>>>>>>>>> processes, on different machines, accessing the same db. It > > >>> can > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>>>> solved > > >>>>>>>>>> via a SQL transaction, but I feel the whole issue can be > > >>>> avoided > > >>>>> by > > >>>>>>>> using > > >>>>>>>>>> UUIDs. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Using the CLI to access specific nodes is not something I > > >> see > > >>>>>>>> happening a > > >>>>>>>>>> lot outside of debugging. And when you do debug, you'll > > >>>> probably > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>> copying > > >>>>>>>>>> and pasting a node ID from the logs, so shorter names do > > >> not > > >>>> add > > >>>>>> much > > >>>>>>>>> ease > > >>>>>>>>>> of use. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Again, I would be personally happiest if this was > > >>> configurable > > >>>>> (and > > >>>>>>>>>> personally think UUIDs should be the reasonable default). > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Maxim Orlov < > > >>>> ma...@cloudify.co> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Technically we have no issue with implementing this via > > >>> uuid > > >>>>> or a > > >>>>>>>>>>> threadsafe solution for the current index implementation. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Getting node data via the cli feels more intuitive using > > >>> the > > >>>>>> index > > >>>>>>>>> based > > >>>>>>>>>>> ID, rather than the uuid based ID in my opionion. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 25, 2017 9:49 PM, "Tal Liron" <t...@cloudify.co> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Our code for determining the next index is not > > >> concurrently > > >>>>> safe > > >>>>>>> (no > > >>>>>>>>>> atomic > > >>>>>>>>>>> transaction) so I can see it breaking in concurrent use > > >>> cases > > >>>>>>>> (running > > >>>>>>>>>> two > > >>>>>>>>>>> ARIA commands at the same time). > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> What is to gain here in terms of human readability? In my > > >>>>> opinion > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>> adds > > >>>>>>>>>>> confusion because it gives a false sense of > > >> predictability. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion the best compromise is to use > > >> base57-encoded > > >>>>> UUIDs. > > >>>>>>>> These > > >>>>>>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>>>> true UUIDs, but use a mix of upper and lowercase > > >>>> alphanumerics > > >>>>>>>> ensuring > > >>>>>>>>>> no > > >>>>>>>>>>> visually ambiguous characters. We have the code for this > > >> in > > >>>>>>>>>> utils/uuid.py. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> See also: https://github.com/wyattisimo/base57-ruby > > >>>>> [https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/625546?v=3&s=400 > ]<https:// > > >>>>> github.com/wyattisimo/base57-ruby> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> GitHub - wyattisimo/base57-ruby: Base57 encoder for Ruby.< > > >>>>> https://github.com/wyattisimo/base57-ruby> > > >>>>> github.com > > >>>>> base57-ruby - Base57 encoder for Ruby. ... Clone with HTTPS Use Git > > >> or > > >>>>> checkout with SVN using the web URL. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Maxim Orlov < > > >>>>> ma...@cloudify.co> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually the refactoring was made so the id would be > > >> more > > >>>>> user > > >>>>>>>>>> readable. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The index is determined according to the used indices > > >>> (it's > > >>>>> not > > >>>>>>>> just > > >>>>>>>>> a > > >>>>>>>>>>>> running number). If indeed this poses an issue (or if > > >>>> indeed > > >>>>> a > > >>>>>>> uuid > > >>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>>> easier to recognize, or even use in a query), let's > > >>> discuss > > >>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>> further... > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Tal Liron < > > >>>> t...@cloudify.co> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We used to use UUIDs but at some point this was > > >>>>> refactored. I > > >>>>>>>> tend > > >>>>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> agree > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with you. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I would prefer it to be configurable. We > > >> have > > >>>>> code > > >>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>> place > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ID generation of various types: UUIDs, short UUIDs, > > >> and > > >>>>>>>>> sequentials. > > >>>>>>>>>>> All > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them would seem useful to me for various scenarios. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Vaishnavi K.R < > > >>>>>>>>>>>> vaishnavi....@ericsson.com > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> With my understanding in current ARIA, the node > > >>>> instances > > >>>>>> are > > >>>>>>>>> made > > >>>>>>>>>>>> unique > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by prefixing the node name with the 'id of the > > >>> service' > > >>>>>> (i.e. > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> primary > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> key of the service table) as the instances are > > >>> specific > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>> service. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What will be the name of the node instances if the > > >>>>> default > > >>>>>>>>>> instances > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the node template is '3' and how this will hold > > >> good > > >>>>> during > > >>>>>>>> scale > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could UUID be of great help in handling such cases > > >> by > > >>>>>>> including > > >>>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as a > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> column in the database tables of the service and > > >> the > > >>>>> node? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will wipe out the naming confusions and > > >> querying > > >>>> can > > >>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>> made > > >>>>>>>>>>> easy > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the UUIDs. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your suggestion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Vaish > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
