[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content



After long consideration, I have had a change of heart about this.  I think.  In short, Pulp's data model has unique requirements that make it acceptable to deviate from common convention regarding ID as the PK.  Mainly that the schema is extensible by plugin writers.  Given the plugin architecture, I think it's reasonable to think of "core" fields like: ID, CREATED and LAST_MODIFIED as metadata.  Although, the ID is harder to fit in this semantic, I think it's reasonable to do for consistency and to support the user query use-case re: content having an natural ID attribute.  Taking this further, the href attributes could be though of in the same category.

With this in mind, I'm thinking that the leading underscore (_) could be used broadly to denote generated or metadata fields and the following would be reasonable:

_id
_created
_last_updated

_href
_added_href
_removed_href
_content_href

I highly value consistency so this applies to the entire schema.

This will introduce a few fairly odd things into the schema that I suppose we can live with.

- Two fields on some tables named (ID ,  _ID).  To mitigate confusion, we should serialize the pk and not _id.  This will also be consistent with pk parameters passed in.
- I expect django will generate foreign key fields with double understores.  Eg: content__id

I'm still -1 for using a pulp_ prefix.

Thoughts?


On 06/18/2018 01:15 PM, Daniel Alley wrote:
I'm -1 on going the underscore idea, partly because of the aforementioned confusion issue, but also partly because but I've noticed that in our API, the "underscore" basically has a semantic meeting of "href, [which is] generated on the fly, not stored in the db".

Specifically:
  • '_href'
  • '_added_href'
  • '_removed_href'
  • '_content_href'
So I think if we use a prefix, we should avoid using one that already has a semantic meaning (I don't know whether we actually planned for that to be the case, but I think it's a useful pattern / distinction and I don't think we should mess with it).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]