Sure, that makes sense. Right now the Tag encodes a legitimate sequence. We should probably just clean up the representation so it doesn't expose the internals and just exposes the unit and action sequence number.
-- John Weldon On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer < [email protected]> wrote: > It was my mistake to call it a hash.. it may be just a random id, in hex > form. Alternatively, use a service-specific sequence number so it's better > suited to humans. In the latter case, the sequence number must > realistically reflect the sequence in which the actions are submitted to > units, otherwise it would be confusing. > > On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 3:51:04 PM John Weldon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks Gustavo; >> >> I think a hash would be good too. I'll see what I can find in the juju >> code base around hash representations of id's, or come up with something. >> Any suggestions on how to generate and translate the hash are welcome too. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> -- >> John Weldon >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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
