On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:04 PM, John Weldon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, that works for me. Please don't expose tags in the UI -- as gustavo says, they're implementation details. The only critically important property of a tag is that it be a *unique* entity identifier for API use -- and that requirement is generally at odds with a pleasant UX. But, yes, if the user representation happens to have a clean 2-way mapping with the relevant tags, that makes life easier in some respects, and I certainly won't complain about that. Cheers William > > > -- > 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 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 > -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
