Thank you Ajay Team - Please comment if you have any feedback.
Balu Vellanki On 8/5/15, 5:25 PM, "Ajay Yadav on behalf of Ajay Yadava" <[email protected]> wrote: >Answer 1: >Falcon should keep the deleted instances in Graph DB. It should be treated >as historical record. > >That said growth of DB will be another concern, Falcon will need to >periodically archive instances to maintain performance of the Graph DB. > >Answer 2: >Current Falcon behaviour is that it tracks entity updates with >(name+type). >So if a new entity of same type is submitted with same name, then it >should >be treated as same entity's new version in Graph DB. Currently Graph DB >doesn't record the deletion, it will also need to record the deletion of >entities by using some property, so that users know which is the current >definition. > > > >On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Balu Vellanki <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Hi Team, >> >> Question 1: >> As of today - Entities and their successful instances are stored in >> GraphDB. Entities are stored in configuration store. When an entity is >> deleted, the deleted entity is archived under configuration store. >>There is >> no way to list deleted entities via an existing API. The >>entities+instances >> are not deleted from GraphDB. So when an entity is deleted, should >>Falcon >> keep entity+instances for historical purposes or should Falcon delete >>them >> from graphDB? Should Falcon have an API to list archived entities? >> >> The potential use case here is that a user might want to see the >>instances >> of deleted entities (jobs) for historical/bookkeeping purposes. Please >> discuss if this is a valid use case that Falcon should support. If yes, >> Ying Zheng and Venkat Ranganathan suggested that Falcon should create a >> disk based archival store that can be queried. Since it is disk based, >>it >> will be slow. But the user understands that limitation, and the >>frequency >> of bookkeeping requests should be lot fewer than regular APIs. >> If you think this use case should not be supported by Falcon, the simple >> solution is to delete the entity+instances from the graphDB. >> >> Question 2 : When entity is deleted and a new entity is created with >>same >> name, Is this equivalent to update of an entity OR is the new object >> considered an entirely different entity? >> >> I believe the new entity should be treated as a different object, and >>the >> deleted entity of same name plus it's instances should not be associated >> with new entity. If falcon does not treat the entities as different >> objects, Falcon will have to introduce versioning of entities. All >> instances of an entity should be associated with a specific version of >> entity. Personally - I do not see a strong use case today for >>versioning. >> >> Please discuss. >> >> Thank you >> Balu Vellanki >> >> >>
