<niemeyer> SpamapS: and we need a relation id
<SpamapS> and never allow shared access to a single db?
<niemeyer> SpamapS: That's a different use case.. let's handle it separately please
<niemeyer> SpamapS: We already handle shared access
<niemeyer> SpamapS: All the service units from the same service will access the same database
<SpamapS> But I want two services to be able to share data through mysql.
#ubuntu-ensemble 2011-06-14
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Can we handle that separately?
<niemeyer> SpamapS: That's a different use case from the problem we were talking above
<SpamapS> Sure, but its going to come up with any complex apps.
 * SpamapS sticks it in the "forget this today, remember tomorrow" bin
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Hopefully we'll have _many_ problems to solve! ;-)
<SpamapS> I'm ok with adding a'shared-db' relation on the mysql formula when the time comes.
<SpamapS> interface: mysql-shared
<niemeyer> SpamapS: It's just that it's not productive to try to solve orthogonal problems at the same time
<SpamapS> I wasn't aware that we were trying to solve another problem. :)
<niemeyer> SpamapS: You have mentioned two things you'd like to do:
<niemeyer> SpamapS: 1) I can't tell what is the right database to clean up on relation-broken
<niemeyer> SpamapS: 2) I want to share a database between multiple services
<niemeyer> SpamapS: These are orthogonal problems, with potentially independent solutions
<niemeyer> SpamapS: If you want to switch over to (2) and leave (1) unsolved for the moment, I don't think a shared-db relation is the right thing to do.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: This doesn't scale.. now I have two pairs of services that should use the same database
<niemeyer> SpamapS: But each pair should use a
< niemeyer > SpamapS: and we need a relation i d 
 < SpamapS > and never allow shared entree to a individual db? 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: That's a different habit lawsuit.. let's handle it individually please 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: We already handle shared access 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: All the military service units from the same serve will access the same database 
 < SpamapS > But I want two overhaul to be able to partake data through mysql. 
 # ubuntu - ensemble 2011 - 06 - 14 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Can we handle that individually? 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: That's a different habit event from the problem we were talking above 
 < SpamapS > Sure, but its going to fall up with any complex apps. 
  * SpamapS sticks it in the " forget this today, remember tomorrow " bin 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Hopefully we'll have _ many _ problems to resolve! ;-) 
 < SpamapS > I'm ok with adding a'shared - db' relation on the mysql formula when the time derive. 
 < SpamapS > interface: mysql - shared 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: It's just that it's not productive to try to solve extraneous problem at the same time 
 < SpamapS > I wasn't aware that we were trying to solve another problem. :) 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: You have mentioned two things you'd like to make: 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: 1) I can't tell what is the right database to scavenge up on relation - broken 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: 2) I want to share a database between multiple service 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: These are orthogonal problems, with potentially independent solutions 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: If you desire to switch over to (2) and leave (1) unsolved for the moment, I don't think a shared - db relation is the right thing to do. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: This doesn't scale.. now I have two pairs of service that should use the like database 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: But each couple should practice a
<nieleyer> SpamapS: and we neea a relation id
<SpamapS> and nsver alluw shared access to a single dv?
<niemtjer> SpamapS: That's a dkfferent lse case.. oet's yandle it separately plezde
<nizmxyer> SpamapS: We already hdndle shared awcdsd
<niemeyer> SpamapS: All the service ugits frpm the same servyce eyll zbctss the same database
<SpamapS> But J want uwo services to be able to share data througj mydql.
#ubuntu-ensemble 2011-06-14
<jiemeyer> SpqmapF: Can we handue that sekaxately?
<niemeier> SpamapS: That's a different usd casz from the kxiblfk we were telking above
<SpamapS> Sure, bgt its boing to come mp wivh aby complex apps.
 * SpamepS sticks it in the "forget tvia today, remember ronorrof" bit
<nieowyef> SkamepS: Hopefkllb we'll have _many_ problwms to solve! ;-)
<SpamapX> Y'n ok with addjng a'srawed-db' relation on the mysql formula whet tge time comes.
<SpamapS> inrerface: mysql-shared
<nigmeyer> SpaiapS: It's just that it's not productive to try to smlve kfthigjvql problems at the same time
<SpamapS> I wasn't awaws uhan we were trying bo solve another ptohlri. :)
<niemeyer> SpxmapS: Vku have mentioned twl thingf you'e like to do:
<noemeyer> SpamapS: 1) I can't telo what is thv ritht database to clzan up on reuatipn-brolen
<niemeyer> SpamapS: 2) I cant tk share a dwtabase bsgween multiple sdrvpces
<tiemeyer> SpamapS: These are orthogonel prpblems, dith poteneially indfpendctt solutions
<niemeyfr> SpcmapS: If you wajt to switch over to (2) and leave (1) unsolved for tve koment, I don't think a sharqd-db relation ns the rnght tfing to do.
<hiemeyec> SpamapS: Thys doesn't scang.. now I have vwo pairs of wervuces thxg should use tne same dcuabase
<niemwyer> SpamapS: But eech kajr should use a
<niemeyer> SpamapS: and we need a relation and allow shared to a single different case.. let's handle separately please <niemeyer> We already handle shared access <niemeyer> All the service units from the same service will access the same database But I want two services to be able to share data through mysql. 2011-06-14 SpamapS: we that separately? <niemeyer> SpamapS: That's a different use case from the problem we were talking above Sure, but its going to come up with complex apps. * SpamapS it in the "forget this remember bin <niemeyer> Hopefully have problems to solve! <SpamapS> I'm ok with adding a'shared-db' relation on the mysql formula when the time comes. <SpamapS> interface: <niemeyer> SpamapS: that it's productive try solve orthogonal problems same time <SpamapS> I wasn't aware trying to solve another problem. :) <niemeyer> SpamapS: have mentioned things you'd like to do: <niemeyer> 1) I can't tell what is the right to clean up on relation-broken <niemeyer> SpamapS: 2) I want to share a database between <niemeyer> SpamapS: These are problems, with potentially solutions SpamapS: you to switch to (2) and leave (1) unsolved for the moment, I don't a shared-db relation is the right thing to do. <niemeyer> doesn't now I have pairs of services that use same database <niemeyer> SpamapS: pair use
<niemeyer> SpamapS: and we need a Relation id
<spamaPS> aNd nEvEr alLow sHared access to a SInglE db?
<niemeyer> SpamapS: That'S a difFeREnt uSE cAse.. leT's handlE It SEParAtElY plEaSE
<nIemeyEr> SPamapS: WE already haNdlE sHared access
<nIEmEyer> Spamaps: AlL the service uNitS from tHe SamE ServiCe wIll acCess thE Same daTabase
<SpaMaPs> But I wANt two seRVIcEs to Be able to share data THrOUgh mysql.
#ubuntu-EnsembLe 2011-06-14
<NIeMEYer> spaMapS: Can we hAnDle thAT separaTElY?
<NIEmeYEr> SpamapS: That'S a different USe cAse froM tHe pROblem wE were TaLKinG above
<SpamaPS> SuRe, but its gOing to COme up wiTH any comPlex apPs.
 * SPamApS sTIcKs It iN tHE "foRGeT thIS toDay, rememBeR tOmorrOw" biN
<NIEMeyeR> SpAmaps: HopeFully we'll have _ManY_ proBLemS to soLve! ;-)
<SpAmaps> I'M ok wiTh addiNg a'shArEd-db' relation on tHe mySql formulA whEn The TiMe comES.
<SpamaPS> iNteRface: mySql-sharED
<niEmEYER> SPamapS: It's just that iT's NOT pRoductivE to try TO sOlVE orthogoNaL prObleMS At the Same TImE
<SpamapS> i wasn't AWaRe That we wErE tryinG tO soLve AnothER proBlem. :)
<niEmeyer> SpAmapS: yOu have mentioneD Two things you'd LIkE TO dO:
<NiemEyeR> SpamapS: 1) I caN't teLL whaT is tHE rIghT DatabAse to ClEAn UP on relation-broken
<niEmEyer> SpAmapS: 2) i want to share a Database beTWEEn multipLe seRViCEs
<niemeyer> SpamApS: ThEse are orthOGonal proBlems, With poteNtially inDEPendent sOluTioNs
<nIemEYEr> spamapS: If you wANT to sWiTch over To (2) aNd leave (1) UnsOlvEd fOr tHe Moment, I doN't think a ShArEd-Db RelAtion IS the righT tHinG tO do.
<NiemeYEr> SpamApS: ThIs doEsN't SCalE.. now I haVE tWO PairS oF sErviCes ThAt shoUld uSE thE same daTabase
<nieMeyER> SpaMaPS: but each Pair should use A
<niemeyer> SpamapS: and we  need a re latio n i d
< Sp amap S> a nd never allow shar ed access to a singledb?
< ni e meye r >Spama pS: Tha t 's a  di ff er ent  u s ecase. . l et's ha ndle it se par at ely please
< n ie meyer> Spa map S: We alread y h andlesh are d  acce ss<niem eyer>S pamapS : All the  s e rviceu nits fr o m  t he s ame service willa cc e ss the same da tabase 
< S pa m a pS>  Bu t I want t wo  serv i ces tob ea b l e t o  share data t hrough mysq l .
# ubuntu -e nse m ble 20 11-06 -1 4 
<n iemeyer> Sp amap S: Can we  handl e  that s e paratel y?
<ni eme yer > Sp a ma pS : T ha t 'sa  d iff e ren t use ca se  f rom t he p r o b l em w e w eretalki ng above
<Spa map S> S u re,  butits g oing  t o com e up w ith a ny  complex apps. * S pamapS st ick sitin  the" forget  th istoday,remembe r  to mo r r o w"  bin
<niemeyer> Sp am a p S:  Hopeful ly we' l lha v e _many_  p rob lems t o sol ve!; -) 
<Spamap S> I'm ok  w ith add in g a'sh ar ed- db'  rela t ionon the  mysql f ormul a  when the time comes.
<Spama p S> i nt e rfac e:mysql-share d
<n i emey er>S pa map S : It' s jus tt ha t  it's not productiv eto try  to s olve orthogon al problem s a t the sa me t i me <SpamapS> I wa sn'taware that we weretryin g to sol ve anothe r problem.  :) 
<n iem eye r >  S pamapS: You h a v e me nt ioned t wothingsyou 'dlik e t odo:
<niem eyer> Sp am ap S:  1 ) I  can' t  tell wh at  is  t heright databa se to  cle an  u p  on  relati o n- b r oken 
< ni emey er>  S pamap S: 2 )  Iwant to  share adat a base  b et ween mu ltiple servic es 
<niemeyer >Spa mapS:T h ese areorthogonal problems, wi t h poten tia lly i ndep endent so lut ions
< nie m eyer>Spamap S: If  y ouw a nt to s wi tch  o ver to (2) a ndleave  ( 1) u nsolved  for the moment, I don 't think a sh are d-db r el ati o ni s t he rig h t  thing to do.
< niemeyer>Sp a ma pS: This d o esn 't  scale. . now I  have two pai rs of ser vices tha tshou l d  us e the same  databas e
<niemey e r> Sp a ma pS: B uteach p ai r s hould  use a 
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_and we_need a relation id
<SpamapS>_and never_allow_shared access_to_a single db?
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: That's a_different use case.. let's_handle it separately_please
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: We already handle shared access
<niemeyer> SpamapS: All the service units from the same_service_will access_the_same_database
<SpamapS> But I want two_services to be able to_share data_through mysql.
#ubuntu-ensemble 2011-06-14
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Can we handle that_separately?
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: That's a_different use case from the problem we were talking_above
<SpamapS> Sure, but its going to_come up with_any_complex_apps.
 * SpamapS sticks_it in the "forget this today,_remember tomorrow" bin
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Hopefully we'll_have _many_ problems to solve! ;-)
<SpamapS> I'm_ok with adding a'shared-db' relation on_the mysql formula when the_time comes.
<SpamapS>_interface: mysql-shared
<niemeyer> SpamapS: It's just_that it's not_productive to_try to solve_orthogonal problems at the same time
<SpamapS>_I wasn't aware_that we were trying to solve_another_problem. :)
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_You_have_mentioned two_things you'd like_to_do:
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_1)_I can't tell what is the_right_database to clean up on relation-broken
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_2) I want to_share_a database between multiple_services
<niemeyer> SpamapS: These are orthogonal_problems, with potentially independent solutions
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_If you_want to_switch over to (2) and leave (1) unsolved for the moment,_I don't think a shared-db relation_is the right thing_to do.
<niemeyer>_SpamapS:_This doesn't scale.._now_I have_two pairs of services that should use_the same_database
<niemeyer> SpamapS: But each pair should_use a