I just don't see users having to deal much with node IDs outside of simple hello-world style tutorials, and I'd hate for the first impressions that users get out of ARIA is that it's just a playground for TOSCA. It should be ready out-of-the-box for the real world.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:13 AM, DeWayne Filppi <dewa...@cloudify.co> wrote: > Such is their strength. I'm just advocating using them as a last resort > because they are user unfriendly and gigantic. > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > Let's consider a mass deployment: thousands of service instances of the > > same service template, created by many different users with their own > ARIA > > installations (and databases). In that case, assuming we use sequential > > IDs, you would have the same node ID appear many times. You would have to > > identify it via the particular user and service instance. If you're > > centralizing logs, this can quickly be cumbersome. A UUID will identify > it > > globally and avoid any confusion. > > > > I think the default should be something that avoids such problems. For > > users who insist on shorter IDs, we can allow them to configure it. > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:42 PM, DeWayne Filppi <dewa...@cloudify.co> > > wrote: > > > > > True uuids are seductive, because of their simplicity. But they are > > huge, > > > overkill, and meaningless. Imho a structured id is superior if it can > be > > > made to work without a global locking scheme. > > > > > > - DeWayne > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2017 12:11 PM, "Tal Liron" <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
