[Pulp-dev] [pulp 3] proposed change to publishing REST api

Jeff Ortel jortel at redhat.com
Mon Oct 23 19:39:16 UTC 2017

On 10/23/2017 11:30 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
> That is exactly what I had in mind. Though the field can be NULL if the task has been removed from the
> database already. This way a serialized version of a Publication would provide a reference to a task that can
> be tracked to see if the publication was successfully created. If a failure occurs, the user can choose to
> delete the publication. Why do you think it's not a good idea to add this association?

Mainly for 2 reasons:

1. Knowing which task created a publication is only useful for a short amount of time.  For example, making a
subsequent API call.  However the related task is pretty much meaningless (to a user) when listing
publications and trying to decide which to use to update a distribution or delete.

2. We don't do this for any other resource created by a task.

>     I still like the idea of adding Publication.name as a natural key that can be specified by the user.  It can
>     default to the task ID when not specified.  This gives users something meaningful to use when selecting a
>     publication for association to a Distribution or when deleting.
> I also think it's valuable to let users name their publications. However, we should avoid forcing users to
> form URLs to resources on their own. Jeremy put it well in his response.

I was not aware that was suggested.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171023/bcc64afd/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list