On 29/05/12 09:03, Itamar Heim wrote: > 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.
I don't think the uniqueness is an issue, if not abused it will be unique per flow/flow sequence. Usually correlation Id enables the user to correlate between multiple components or between multiple flows, which fits our usage of this ID. _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
