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

Patrick Creech pcreech at redhat.com
Fri Jun 29 18:51:18 UTC 2018

On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 11:26 -0400, Jeremy Audet wrote:
> Base URLs should never change. That's an expectation that all web application clients everywhere should be able to rely on. "Cool URIs don't change." If anything, storing IDs is the worse practice,
> because that implies that the client is going to use pre-existing knowledge to locally build URLs, instead of asking Pulp for the URLs it needs.
Just a minor note here.  While this is _definitely_ a great ideal for any public resource and is somtething that anything on the public web should try to obtain, this sentiment doesn't really hold
true to resources deployed internally at a company, in theory or in practice.  Internal infrastructre at most companies changes, a lot.

Software deployed at a resource location should allow the flexibility for the owner to deploy it anywhere, move it anywhere, and do whatever it wants with it.  It should not lock down someones ability
to do this, or enforce this policy upon it's users deep in it's code/database.

I recently did this with a gitlab move I was involved in, renaming it from a location dependent domain name to a service style domain, and it most definitely allowed me to simply rename what hostname
it was deployed with via a single config variable, and still works on both hostnames at the same time.  I can also speak for the Atlassian suite of products, which also allow you to do this.  'Where'
something is deployed is up to the deployer, anything after that can and should be up to pulp.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180629/7fec954e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list