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

Jeff Ortel jortel at redhat.com
Thu Jun 14 18:49:26 UTC 2018

On 06/14/2018 08:08 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> Jeff, can you elaborate more on your -1. I want to understand it. I'm 
> struggling to appreciate an "it's a convention" argument without 
> sources like an RFC or similar. I don't believe internet articles are 
> credible sources because any viewpoint can be validated by an internet 
> post.

RFCs typically define standards not conventions. Agreed on internet 
articles being available to support most any viewpoint. FWIW, I didn't 
introduce the aforementioned article.  Conventions are typically 
establish through example.  IMHO, most articles, tutorials, textbooks, 
etc use ID (or TABLE_ID) for the primary key. Also, this convention has 
been applied on /every/ project I have worked on.

> To recap my interests here, it's about being responsive to the 
> community. We ask plugin writers for feedback and from two independent 
> plugin writers (not me) we received feedback that this name wasn't 
> ideal. I want us to be responsive to that. It's not only because I 
> think their technical feedback is legit (albeit small), but also 
> because it's our strategy during the beta/RC of Pulp3 core is to make 
> adjustments based on plugin writer feedback. To receive feedback and 
> choose to not follow the recommendation they suggested feels like not 
> the way I want to interact with plugin writers. This is my main 
> concern with not making a change in this area.

I am sensitive to plugin writer requests but changing the name of the 
primary key field for every table in the core because 2 plugin writers 
said that it "wasn't ideal" seems rash.  I'm not convinced that this is 
a correctness concern but rather a minor inconvenience for what seems 
like (so far) a small percentage of plugins.  Plugin writers will always 
need to contend with naming conflicts and I believe the plugin is the 
proper place to resolve them.  I also want to be responsive to feedback 
but I think it's reasonable for the answer to be "no" when the request 
is not in the best interest of the project as a whole.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180614/4656b7ea/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list