On 05/15/2012 12:05 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
>
> OTOH I find the metadata proposal in another table too much
> complicated. Why not storing what metadata in the meter.payload field
> in the same table (e.g. as a JSON string)?
I would be much simpler to store the metadata in the resource_id field which
could be renamed into resource field.
Instead of resource_id=134123 we could have resource={ 'id': 134123, 'name':
'foobar', 'flavor': 'm1.small' etc.. }
There would be no need for versioning, format, separate table, etc. etc. The
only convention would be that it's a hash with at least one field : the id of
the resource. The rest is metadata.
It will use a lot of disk space with highly redundant information.
Cheers
--
Loïc Dachary Chief Research Officer
// eNovance labs http://labs.enovance.com
// ✉ [email protected] ☎ +33 1 49 70 99 82
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
