On 05/29/2012 08:56 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 28/05/12 21:31, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 05/28/2012 02:35 PM, Ori Liel wrote:
Quite a few people liked flow-id, and no one objected to it
explicitly, so I'll just go with that.
If someone feels strongly against, please reply.
I still like 'label' better.
it doesn't have the context of a unique id, and is much more correct to
what this is - allows the user to label a command (or a set of commands).
but also doesn't imply it's unique in any way (i.e., it's like a "tag",
just a better, non overloaded term for it).
I think that flow-id is confusing. This id has nothing to do with flow,
it can aggregate multiple commands and it is not associated with a
specific user flow.
Correlation-Id is a common name for such Id, we took it from the
terminology used in JMS queues, but Microsoft and Oracle are using CID too.
* http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=23842
*
http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/blogs/GetThePoint/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=353
*
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B14099_19/integrate.1012/b25709/com/oracle/bpel/client/CorrelationId.html
but all of those conform to the concept of an "id" uniquely identifies
the correlation. in our case, it is not unique, and just a label the
user sets.
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
