In order to better understand the goal and to come up with a solution that will be valuable for common use cases, can you elaborate on why you would want a description (or other metadata field) to be different from one repo to another?
I'm wondering if the best approach will be to push data the other direction; to come up with a more general storage solution where multiple unique units might be able to reference the same file. We have other use cases for wanting additional/better storage options, so this might be a natural fit for that work. This would let relationship objects continue to only store data about the relationship itself, but brings up new questions of how to define uniqueness among units. Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Gregorovic" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:09:10 AM Subject: [Pulp-list] unit association attributes Hi, I'm interested in exploring the option of having attributes that we can set on unit associations. For example, let's say that I have an ISO which is mapped to two different repos. I want to provide a description of that ISO, but the description would be different in repo A than in repo B. Currently, repo_content_units contains the following fields: created id owner_id owner_type repo_id unit_id unit_type_id updated To keep things simple, a single 'notes' field could be added to this table like the notes field that is available on repos. A more structured approach would be appealing, but could quickly get complicated since the set of desired fields would vary by content type. -- Dennis _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
