As a side note, and a bikeshed-prone rant which I won't embrace, naming it "tag" feels like a mistake.
On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 4:13:14 PM William Reade <william.re...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:04 PM, John Weldon <johnweld...@gmail.com> > 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 > > <gustavo.nieme...@canonical.com> 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 <johnweld...@gmail.com> > >> 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 > >>> <gustavo.nieme...@canonical.com> 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 <johnweld...@gmail.com> > >>>> 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 > >>>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > >>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > >>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >>> > >>> > > > > > > -- > > Juju-dev mailing list > > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
