It's not an issue of thread safety -- it could be entirely different processes, on different machines, accessing the same db. It can be solved via a SQL transaction, but I feel the whole issue can be avoided by using UUIDs.
Using the CLI to access specific nodes is not something I see happening a lot outside of debugging. And when you do debug, you'll probably be copying and pasting a node ID from the logs, so shorter names do not add much ease of use. Again, I would be personally happiest if this was configurable (and personally think UUIDs should be the reasonable default). On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Maxim Orlov <ma...@cloudify.co> wrote: > Technically we have no issue with implementing this via uuid or a > threadsafe solution for the current index implementation. > > Getting node data via the cli feels more intuitive using the index based > ID, rather than the uuid based ID in my opionion. > > On Jul 25, 2017 9:49 PM, "Tal Liron" <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > Our code for determining the next index is not concurrently safe (no atomic > transaction) so I can see it breaking in concurrent use cases (running two > ARIA commands at the same time). > > What is to gain here in terms of human readability? In my opinion it adds > confusion because it gives a false sense of predictability. > > In my opinion the best compromise is to use base57-encoded UUIDs. These are > true UUIDs, but use a mix of upper and lowercase alphanumerics ensuring no > visually ambiguous characters. We have the code for this in utils/uuid.py. > > See also: https://github.com/wyattisimo/base57-ruby > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Maxim Orlov <ma...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > Actually the refactoring was made so the id would be more user readable. > > The index is determined according to the used indices (it's not just a > > running number). If indeed this poses an issue (or if indeed a uuid is > > easier to recognize, or even use in a query), let's discuss it further... > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > > > We used to use UUIDs but at some point this was refactored. I tend to > > agree > > > with you. > > > > > > Actually, I would prefer it to be configurable. We have code in place > for > > > ID generation of various types: UUIDs, short UUIDs, and sequentials. > All > > of > > > them would seem useful to me for various scenarios. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Vaishnavi K.R < > > vaishnavi....@ericsson.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > With my understanding in current ARIA, the node instances are made > > unique > > > > by prefixing the node name with the 'id of the service' (i.e. the > > primary > > > > key of the service table) as the instances are specific to the > service. > > > > > > > > > > > > What will be the name of the node instances if the default instances > > for > > > > the node template is '3' and how this will hold good during scale in > > and > > > > out? > > > > > > > > > > > > Could UUID be of great help in handling such cases by including that > > as a > > > > column in the database tables of the service and the node? > > > > > > > > This will wipe out the naming confusions and querying can be made > easy > > > > with the UUIDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your suggestion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > /Vaish > > > > > > > > > >
