On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Jeff Ortel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ah, I missed adding the relative path to the join table. This is a fine > idea as well. > > On 06/30/2017 10:15 AM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > > > > Jeff, earlier in the thread we talked about using the through table to > hold the path. I think that's the right > > place, because the path would be a property of the relationship between > an artifact and a content unit. It > > also occurred to me that the file name could be different for different > content, so maybe the path would need > > to include the filename. That seems a bit weird, but I think it has to > be the case if we use a many-to-many > > relationship. > > I imagined that the relative path would be included the name of the Artifact as it should appear in the Content. So for an artifact that is nested inside a directory, the relative path might be 'image/foo'. For a unit that is a single Artifact, the relative path may be 'foo'. The combination of Content Id, Artifact Id, and relative path would the uniqueness constraint for the through table. _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
