Yep, understood. Definitely going to be a good discussion at the summit :)
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Michael Gundlach <[email protected]> wrote: > Jay, > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Have we considered using UUID or some sort of URI as the unique >> identifier for instances (and other objects in the system)? Seems to >> me that the existing methods (str_id and similar) are trying to >> reinvent the primary key wheel somewhat for each API namespace. Why >> not use UUID or URI and be done with it? In other words, completely >> scrap the idea of using auto-incrementing keys... > > As long as an identifier exists per instance that is translatable to and > from both API ID formats (so you can create an instance in API 1 and consume > it in API 2), I think this is a fine idea. IANADBA though, so there may be > arguments in the other direction that I'm not aware of. > Michael > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or > embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of > the > individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless > otherwise > expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of > Rackspace. > Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is > prohibited. > If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by > e-mail > at [email protected], and delete the original message. > Your cooperation is appreciated. > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nova Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nova More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
