DeWayne, I think you missed parts of this discussion where we answered some these issues:
1) ARIA *does* allow you configure you choice of ID generation, and I agree it can be an integration requirement. (We have a JIRA open to give this configuration a CLI.) 2) ARIA has a choice of UUID formats beyond the very long 36-character hex. Base57 is 22 characters and designed for human readability. 3) All the costs you mention seem very negligible to me. ARIA's database storage is tiny. UUID generation happens only when new nodes are created, and is many orders of magnitude faster than storing anything in a database. It doesn't easy to resolve this issue, as there are two camps here. But I'm very convinced that Vaish and I are correct here. :) Node (and service) names in the real world are used for other systems beyond ARIA once the nodes are installed: names become domain names linked to IP addresses, names of operating system services, registration IDs for message queues, analytics IDs, etc. For all of these a collision is disastrous, and Vaish is right that if it's set up initially by ARIA there is no need to do anything else. The only possible user discomfort is in using the "aria nodes show", which frankly is a command that I have never even used myself. As for logs, in any install that has more than one service you will be filtering by workflow ID or service ID anyway. Also, in case there was any confusion: we are talking about node names here, not database IDs. The database IDs are entirely handled within the database and are obviously unique only per table and per installation of ARIA. The "name" is an extra column that is uses out in the real world. If this will have to come to a vote among committers, I will absolutely advocate UUIDs by default, and a preference for base57 format. I would consider any other kind of default to be broken for real world cloud orchestration, and I would be very worried if ARIA is to be broken out of the box. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:09 AM, DeWayne Filppi <dewa...@cloudify.co> wrote: > IMHO, obviously UUIDs "work", in the sense that they are "universally > unique" and therefore make collisions unlikely. On the other hand, they > are "universally unique", which includes time and space. There is a cost > to that, and it is the ridiculous number of bits used (IOW they are > insanely inefficient). That has a cost both in storage and readability.. > Also, unless there is a way to mathematically map the UUID to the table > index it refers to, the UUID will have to be in the database, and therefore > the database will be exposed to the user. Besides bulk, the UUID gets > exposed in logs ( and occasionally in the CLI ), which just creates a mess > and eats storage. So UUIDs work, but are a last resort, IMO. Has anyone > put any thought into a structured ID? Structured IDs are far more useful > and user friendly (readable) and potentially compact. I think it would be > good to at least exhaust alternatives before resorting to UUIDs. Another > option is just to punt, make user exposed ID generation pluggable, and > provide a default implementation (or two). This would allow consumers to > use their own ID formats, which might be an integration requirement. > > --DeWayne > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Vaishnavi K.R <vaishnavi....@ericsson.com > > > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
