> > 3. We want update/delete to be immediate and we'd want any task in > progress to discontinue as soon as > possible. Basically, error out.
4. Image these tasks queued up [SYNC][SYNC][SYNC][DEL] ... we'd waste a ton > of cycles syncing a repo that the > user wants to delete. And, the delete get's delayed by hours. Not what > the user intended. > I assumed the opposite. If I issue 3 syncs and then a delete, I wouldn't expect the syncs to be canceled. If we do decide to go with synchronous update/delete, we have to account for the possibility that the content adapter has been modified or removed through the whole sync and publish process. I think that would force us to disallow (or just a strongly worded note) warning them not to reload or save content adapter instances, or else they will be susceptible to race conditions. Because the plugin writer is now responsible for handling race conditions and failing gracefully, I I am thinking that it will not be simpler. 2. Getting a 201 on a resource delete/update seems odd from the REST point > of view. Yeah :( I am -0 on synchronous calls at the moment but I could be convinced otherwise. I think of this primarily as balancing predictability vs performance.
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
