[Pulp-dev] Revisit: sync modes

Jeff Ortel jortel at redhat.com
Wed Aug 8 17:54:49 UTC 2018

I'm not convinced that /named/ sync mode is a good approach. I doubt it 
will ever be anything besides (additive|mirror) which really boils down 
to mirror (or not).  Perhaps the reasoning behind a /named/ mode is that 
it is potentially more extensible in that the API won't be impacted when 
a new mode is needed.  The main problem with this approach is that the 
mode names are validated and interpreted in multiple places. Adding 
another mode will require coordinated changes in both the core and most 
plugins.  Generally, I'm an advocate of named things like /modes/ and 
/policies/ but given the orthogonal nature of the two modes we currently 
support _and_ that no /real/ or anticipated use cases for additional 
modes are known, I'm not convinced it's a good fit. Are there any /real/ 
or anticipated use cases I'm missing?

I propose we replace the (str)sync_mode="" with (bool)mirror=False 
anywhere stored or passed.

Are there any /real/ or anticipated use cases I'm missing?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180808/4f9d2238/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list