Hi;
The current actions spec
https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/14W1-QqB1pXZxyZW5QzFFoDwxxeQXBUzgj8IUkLId6cc/edit?usp=sharing
indicates that the actions command line should return a UUID as the
identifier for an action once it's been en-queued using 'juju do action'.
Is there a
The tag (which might be better named internal id) looks like an
implementation detail which doesn't seem right to expose. I'd suggest
either giving it a proper representation that the user can understand (a
sequential action number, for example), or use a hash. I'd also not use a
UUID, btw, but
It was my mistake to call it a hash.. it may be just a random id, in hex
form. Alternatively, use a service-specific sequence number so it's better
suited to humans. In the latter case, the sequence number must
realistically reflect the sequence in which the actions are submitted to
units,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:04 PM, John Weldon johnweld...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, that makes sense. Right now the Tag encodes a legitimate sequence.
We should probably just clean up the representation so it doesn't expose the
internals and just exposes the unit and action sequence number.
Yeah,
I doubt this would work. There's no way in the transaction package for you
to generate an id and reference that same id in other fields in one go.
In other cases that's not an issue, but having a sequence of numbered
actions where 10 is applied before 9 would be awkward.
On Fri Oct 24 2014 at
As a side note, and a bikeshed-prone rant which I won't embrace, naming it
tag feels like a mistake.
On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 4:13:14 PM William Reade william.re...@canonical.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:04 PM, John Weldon johnweld...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sure, that makes sense. Right now
Forgot to reply-all
-- Forwarded message --
From: John Weldon johnweld...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: Actions :: UUID vs. Tag on command line
To: Gustavo Niemeyer gustavo.nieme...@canonical.com
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer
by the numbers.
On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 4:21:30 PM John Weldon johnweld...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgot to reply-all
-- Forwarded message --
From: John Weldon johnweld...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: Actions :: UUID vs. Tag on command line
To: Gustavo Niemeyer
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net
wrote:
Both of these assumptions are incorrect. Please do not assume there's a
single person managing an environment, and the fact the sequence is
generated outside of the transaction that adds the action is a proof that
On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 4:30:38 PM John Weldon johnweld...@gmail.com wrote:
Ordered execution wasn't addressed in the spec, and we haven't had much
discussion about it.
I'm not even sure how to enforce ordered execution unless we rely on the
creation timestamp.
Specifications are guidelines.
Agreed completely;
My take away -
1. Actions en-queued by the same client MUST execute in the order en-queued.
2. Actions en-queued by different clients SHOULD execute in timestamp order?
3. Action IDs should not mislead users by implying sequence that does not
exist.
4. ergo Action id's will
For 2, it doesn't matter much if the timestamp is taken into account. The
server may simply enqueue the action as it receives it and respond back
only afterwards. This will guarantee read-your-writes consistency, and thus
proper ordering assuming the server does use a queue rather than an
Hmm; makes sense, but this will require some refactoring, because the
watcher collects and returns the id's of new actions as an unordered set,
as it stands today.
I'll start working on this.
--
John Weldon
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer gust...@niemeyer.net
wrote:
For 2,
13 matches
Mail list logo
