On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Nick Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > Our current plan for the inventory service is to provide active_record > termini for the "facts" and "inventory" indirections. This is to support > fast look-up of facts, and search of nodes based on their facts. However, > there are already tables for facts, used for storeconfigs, along with an > active_record terminus for facts.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Matt Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > I propose that we don't share tables, and the inventory service (and > any other future service that needs a database backend) has its own > set of namespaced tables (servicename_tablename). Thanks to those who gave feedback. The general consensus I've reached talking offline to other devs (Jacob, Nick, Paul) is that we should use separate tables for the inventory service from the ones that storeconfigs currently uses. The question of whether to normalize or denormalize (which I didn't mean to have be the focus of this discussion at all) can be left up to the devs who end up working on the implementation, taking the discussion from this thread into account. Matt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
