The "tag" (which might be better named "internal id") looks like an implementation detail which doesn't seem right to expose. I'd suggest either giving it a proper representation that the user can understand (a sequential action number, for example), or use a hash. I'd also not use a UUID, btw, but rather just a unique hash.
On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 2:55:45 PM John Weldon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi; > > The current actions spec > <https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/14W1-QqB1pXZxyZW5QzFFoDwxxeQXBUzgj8IUkLId6cc/edit?usp=sharing> > indicates that the actions command line should return a UUID as the > identifier for an action once it's been en-queued using 'juju do <action>'. > > > Is there a compelling reason to use UUID's to identify actions, versus > using the string representation of the Tag? > > > A UUID would require a command something like: > juju status action:9e1e5aa0-5b9d-11e4-8ed6-0800200c9a66 > > which maybe we could shorten to: > juju status action:9e1e5aa0 > > > > I would prefer something like: > juju status action:mysq/0_a_3 > > which would be the string representation of the actions Tag. > > > > Is there a compelling reason to use UUID? > > Cheers, > > -- > John Weldon > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ > mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
