<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> On 08/13/2012 12:18 PM, Justin Sherrill wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:502928EF.4050207@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> On 08/13/2012 11:05 AM, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:502917A3.6050905@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> Could a couple of folks on Katello team spend an hour or so and take a look at the architectural changes I propose in <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.redhat.com/archives/katello-devel/2012-August/msg00102.html">https://www.redhat.com/archives/katello-devel/2012-August/msg00102.html</a>? Much appreciated, -d <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________ katello-devel mailing list <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katello-devel@redhat.com">katello-devel@redhat.com</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel</a></pre> </blockquote> A couple of thoughts. As we discussed previously productContent does not have a 1-1 mapping to a pulp repo, so with that in mind: 1. Pulp::Repos is a module made up of product and content related items in relation to pulp. I understand that product may not be the best fit for this, however sticking it within repo really isn't either (I would be 100% against this). Potentially breaking it up into product related items and product content related items would make the most sense. 2. I don't see how repositories are tied to environments in this diagram. How would i go about getting all the repositories for a product within an environment? 3. Data level organization is great and all, but if the code isn't more readable (or at least isn't less readable) its all for nothing. Its been my experience that rarely within the code do we need all the repos for a product content within an environment (I don''t know that i've ever needed that information). This is how you've proposed to organize the data however. So if i have to do something like my_product.product_content.collect{|pc| pc.repositories}.flatten in order to get the list of repos in a product, it would not be worth it. I believe the current structure came out of the lack of a need for product content within katello itself (as a user facing object). Try to keep the scopes within product as they are today as much as possible. (i.e. I should still be able to do my_product.repos(my_environment) as that is much nicer :} ). I understand that candlepin relies on product content for lots of things, but katello itself really doesn't care about product content. I'm hesitant to make it a first class model citizen in katello as it could make a lot of code more complicated, but as long as that's kept to a minimum, I'm ok with it. I would say as part of this if you find yourself replacing lots of db queries/AR lookups with longer statements, step back and ask yourself how to simplify it. 4. I would like to see a new proposed diagram with some of these concerns (#1 & #2 & the fact that productContent and repos are not 1-1 mapped) addressed. Thanks, -Justin </blockquote> Couple of other things I noticed which kinda might address some of the confusion around my previous questions: 5. You're current katello diagram is incorrect in that Repository does not "use" (aka include i assume) Pulp::Repos, it includes Pulp::Repo. 6. In your proposed model, a product is only related to an environment by its Product content and I believe a repo is only related to an environment through its product content. This changes how we today consider if a product is promoted within katello and what it means for a repository to be in an environment. Currently if I promote repo "RHEL Server 6.2 x86_64" That doesn't mean all repos within that content (RHEL Server $relver $arch) exist in that environment, which i feel is kinda what it implies. We also I believe allow the promotion of empty products, which i don't think this model allows. I do believe there is a disconnect between repos in katello and product content in candlepin and as long we allow you to selectively enable and promote only certain instances of content (aka repos), then I think there always will be. I know we are not handling this perfectly today within katello (i.e. a client might assume that RHEL Server 6.1 x86_64 exist in an environment when it does not), but i'm not entirely sure this is improves the situation? -Justin <blockquote cite="mid:502928EF.4050207@redhat.com" type="cite"> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________ katello-devel mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katello-devel@redhat.com">katello-devel@redhat.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel</a></pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>