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

[Daniel Alley]

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).

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> Having a user focus made me realize that it would be useful if a user
> could easily tell which attributes were common to all content units versus
> just that one content unit. When scripting for instance that is really
> useful to know. We could document the 5 attributes that platform provides,
> but when there are 20+ attributes on a subclassed content unit the
> underscores would provide an easy, consistent answer to this question. This
> is an additional reason separate from the the issue that our content
> attribute names are colliding (id at least for now). The underscore prefix
> would make collisions highly unlikely also. This problem is only scoped to
> the Content unit since that is the place where we expect a large number of
> subclassed attributes.
>
> For this reason I believe using the _ as the prefix will provide 2
> benefits. I wrote them here on this ticket:  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/
> 3704
>
> I am still +1 on adopting those changes for those reasons. More feedback
> is welcome given the additional problem statements and discussion.
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> uuid sounds like good compromise.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ina Panova
>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>
>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/14/2018 12:19 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/14/2018 10:37 AM, Daniel Alley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I will make one more suggestion.  What about naming "id" -> "uuid"?
>>>>> This carries the clear connotation that it is a unique identifier so it is
>>>>> less likely to be confusing a la "id and _id", and is still less likely to
>>>>> have a namespace conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Appreciate the suggestion but this would only be marginally less
>>>> confusing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reconsidering this suggestion for the reasons you outlined.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180618/853ccd7d/attachment.htm>