On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 4:30:38 PM John Weldon <johnweld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ordered execution wasn't addressed in the spec, and we haven't had much > discussion about it. > I'm not even sure how to enforce ordered execution unless we rely on the > creation timestamp. > Specifications are guidelines. If there are open issues in the specifications, it does not mean that it is okay to do anything in that sense, but rather than either it should be done in the obviously correct way, or that a conversation should be raised if the correct way is not obvious. If someone sends an action, and then sends another action, to me it's clear that the first action should be executed before the second action. If the implementation is not doing that, it should. If two people send two actions concurrently, by definition there's no order implied by their use of the system, and so it's impossible to guarantee which one will be executed first. > Assuming we have a way to enforce ordered execution, and if that ordering > is not using the sequence number that is generated, then does exposing that > sequence number just introduce confusion? > How do you feel about "postgres action 103" executing before "postgres action 102"? I personally feel like it's a bug. > i.e. are we back to just showing some sort of hash / hex sequence as the > id to avoid implying an order by the sequence number? > Either option sounds fine to me. I'm only suggesting that if you do use sequence numbers, you're implying a sequence, and people in general are used to being 35 years old only after they've been 34.
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
