On 11/07/2017 03:09 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > > > Proposal 2 > --- > > We could keep the TaskTag relationship (perhaps even rename it to > TaskResource) and we could add a field > to indicate the nature of the relationship between task and resource > (e.g. created, updated, etc). This > field could not only capture what TaskTag is currently used for but also > stuff like created resources > (e.g. publications). We could also have a field to indicate which task > resources are locked (e.g. is_locked). > > > That's very interesting. I like the idea of RESTful references to resources > that get used, and adding a > qualifier for the type of relationship (created, read, locked, deleted, etc) > could be very useful. > > If we used strong relationships instead of a string field to identify > reserved resources, one thing we would > lose is the ability to lock on something more abstract than a resource. We've > done that in the past, but I > don't think anyone's loved it, so maybe we don't need it. As an example, if > we want only one orphan-purge task > to run at a time, we can reserve a resource named "orphan-removal". We did > this for applicability calculation > for some time in Pulp 2 when there were safety questions about running them > concurrently.
Agreed. I like proposal #2 but without the "locked" relationship.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
