On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Jeff Ortel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - The artifact FK to a content unit would need to become optional. > > - Need to add use cases for cleaning up artifacts not associated with a > content unit. > > - The upload API would need additional information needed to create an > artifact. Like relative path, size, > checksums etc. > > - Since (I assume) you are proposing uploading/writing directly to > artifact storage (not staging in a working > dir), the flow would need to involve (optional) validation. If validation > fails, the artifact must not be > inserted into the DB. Perhaps a decent middle ground would be to stick with the plan of keeping uploaded (or partially uploaded) files as a separate model until they are ready to be turned into a Content instance plus artifacts, and save their file data directly to somewhere within /var/lib/pulp/. It would be some path distinct from where Artifacts are stored. That's what I had imagined we would do anyway. Then as Dennis pointed out, turning that into an Artifact would only require a move operation on the same filesystem, which is super-cheap. Would that address all the concerns? We'd write the data just once, and then move it once on the same filesystem. I haven't looked at django's support for this recently, but it seems like it should be doable. -- Michael Hrivnak Principal Software Engineer, RHCE Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
