On 5/2/13 6:24 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:40:45PM +0530, Abhinandan Prateek wrote: >> >> The tags are name-value pairs basically meant to label resources by a >>user. >> The purpose of the current API is to add useful meta information to >> resources so that they can be meaningfully controlled by external tools. >> >> The current implementation of meta info API may look similar to tags >>with >> possible edition of a "system" or a "user" qualifier/flag in order to >> control visibility. >> >> But it is not so. Tags by definition are name value pairs where both >>name >> and value is a string. If we try to set the meta data information in the >> tags we are severely restricting the type of meta information that can >>be >> contained in the tags. For example if the "data-type" information is >> required in this meta-data we will end up tweaking the tag system to >>serve >> some purpose that it is not meant for. >> >> I strongly suggest that we do not try to contain the meta information >>in a >> restricted framework provided by tags. >> >> -abhi > >I don't understand this argument. Most primary data types have string >representations, right? (ref: JSON) > >Are you talking about complex types? Or things like integers, long, >datetime, etc...? I didn't understand it either. Perhaps the issue is whether this meta-data is available to the end-user or not? At least, tags are visible to the end-user. Is it the intention that this 3rd party service do its magic in cahoots with the admin?
