On 08/19/2013 09:40 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19 2013, Sandy Walsh wrote: > >> On 08/19/2013 05:08 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 18 2013, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> >>>> I'm proposing that in these cases, a *new* resource would be added to the >>>> resource table (and its ID inserted in meter) table with the new >>>> flavor/instance's metadata. >>> >>> Ah I see. Considering we're storing metadata as a serialized string >>> (whereas it's a dict), isn't there a chance we fail? >>> I'm not sure about the idempotence of the JSON serialization on dicts. >> >> Yeah, using a json blob should only be for immutable data. I'm assuming >> metadata can change so we'd need idempotence. I could easily see two >> pipelines altering metadata fields. Last write wins. :( > > No, actually I'm not worried about that, it would work as described by > Jay. It's just that I'm not sure that we can assert json.dumps(somedict) > returns always the same string. >
Gotcha. I think that's fine though. We're going to get that with a frequently changing resource. So long as we have a common UUID (from the source system), the database ID can change all it wants. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev