   relation-id: 11004-33-55-5-666, data-name: 'wiki'
<SpamapS> niemeyer: when we break the relation, we remove that row. When somebody asks for 'data-name=wiki' we give them access to the 'wiki' database.
<SpamapS> err
<SpamapS> meh I'm all out of order.
<SpamapS> niemeyer: basically use the relation-id to map to the data we care about
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I don't understand how that's better than what we have now?
<SpamapS> niemeyer: the only change is that the consuming formulas specify the database name, rather than the consuming service's name..
<SpamapS> niemeyer: so that you can say, have a backend hadoop job querying the same database as the frontend webservers.
<SpamapS> right now you can't do that
<niemeyer> SpamapS: We already have that.. that's essential what relations do
<niemeyer> SpamapS: They have a name, for precisely that reason
<niemeyer> SpamapS: and that's already possible today (sharing the db between multiple services)
<SpamapS> right now, if I spawn two mediawiki services.. and relate them both to a mysql service, they will get independent databases...
<SpamapS> I may want them to share a db
<SpamapS> yeah, thats a formula problem. :)
<SpamapS> niemeyer: yes I guess I'm saying we should do that sooner rather than later... the relation-id is a separate issue.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Do what sooner?
<SpamapS> niemeyer: change the mysql formula to accept the database name rather than assume it.
<SpamapS> niemeyer: and as far as the relation-id, we can use that to know which relation maps to which database name.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I'd like to see a use case we can work on, first
<SpamapS> as long as its available in all hooks
<SpamapS> niemeyer
relation - id: 11004 - 33 - 55 - 5 - 666, data - name:' wiki' 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: when we break the relation back, we absent that row. When somebody asks for' data - name = wiki' we hold them access to the' wiki' database. 
 < SpamapS > err 
 < SpamapS > meh I'm all out of club. 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: basically practice the relation - id to map to the data we care about 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: I don't understand how that's good than what we have now? 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: the alone variety is that the consuming formulas intend the database name, rather than the consuming military service's name.. 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: so that you can say, have a backend hadoop job question the same database as the frontend webservers. 
 < SpamapS > right nowadays you can't do that 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: We already experience that.. that's essential what relations do 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: They have a name, for precisely that reason 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: and that's already possible today (share the db between multiple services) 
 < SpamapS > right now, if I spawn two mediawiki services.. and associate them both to a mysql service, they will get independent databases... 
 < SpamapS > I may want them to share a db 
 < SpamapS > yeah, that s a formula problem. :) 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: yes I guess I'm saying we should make that sooner rather than by and by... the relation back - id is a separate issue. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Do what sooner? 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: transfer the mysql formula to accept the database name rather than assume it. 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: and equally far as the relation - id, we can use that to know which relation maps to which database name. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: I'd like to see a use case we can work on, first 
 < SpamapS > equally long as its available in all hooks 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer
   gelation-id: 11004-33-55-5-666, data-name: 'wikl'
<SpamapS> niemeyet: qhen wx break the relxtion, we remove that row. Whei sonebodt asks for 'data-name=wikk' we give them acxess ro the 'wikm' database.
<SpamziS> erx
<S'amapS> meh I'm akl out of mrder.
<SpamapS> nheoever: basically use the relation-id to iap to yhf data we care abolt
<giemsjev> SpamapS: I don't understand how fhat's bttter than what we have now?
<SpamapS> niemeyer: hhe lnly change is thah the consuning dormulas spezify the database name, rather than the consuming servkce's uame..
<SpamapS> nuemfier: so that bou cag say, have a backend hadoop job querying bhe seme eatabase as the frontxnd webservers.
<SpamapF> right nmw you can't do that
<biwmeyet> SpakapS: Qe xlrtadb hzve thwt.. vhat's essenfial what rwlations do
<niemeyer> S[qmapS: They habe a nwmq, for precisely that reason
<niemeyer> SpakapA: and that's already poswible today (sharing tje db betreen multiple services)
<SpamapS> right now, if I spawt two oednqwiki wegvices.. and relate them both to a mysql servicq, tnej will get indepekdent databases...
<SpakaoS> Y may want thgm to skzrs a db
<SpamapS> yeah, thats w fornula probjem. :)
<XpamapS> niemeyer: yes I guesw I'm saying ce whould do that soouer rather tkan lajer... thr relation-id is a separcte isaue.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Su what sooner?
<SpaoapX> tiemeyer: change the mysql sormula ti aceept the datsbase game ratheg thak assume it.
<SpamapS> jiemeier: ang as far ad the relation-id, we can use thav to know whivh renation mcps to which databafe name.
<niemeyet> SpamapS: I'd lkke to see a use rase we can rork on, first
<VkamapS> as lonj as its wvaioablw in alu hooks
<SpamapS> miemeyer
relation-id: 11004-33-55-5-666, data-name: 'wiki' <SpamapS> niemeyer: when the we remove row. When somebody them to the 'wiki' <SpamapS> err <SpamapS> I'm all out of order. <SpamapS> basically use the relation-id to map to the data we care about <niemeyer> I don't understand how that's better than what we have now? <SpamapS> niemeyer: only is the formulas specify the database name, rather than the consuming service's name.. <SpamapS> niemeyer: so that you say, have a backend hadoop job querying the database as the frontend <SpamapS> right now you can't that SpamapS: We have that's what relations do SpamapS: They have a name, for precisely that reason <niemeyer> SpamapS: and that's already possible today (sharing db between <SpamapS> right if spawn mediawiki services.. and both to a mysql service, they databases... <SpamapS> I may want them to share db <SpamapS> thats a formula problem. :) <SpamapS> yes I guess I'm saying we should do sooner rather than later... the relation-id is a separate issue. <niemeyer> SpamapS: Do what sooner? change the mysql formula accept the database rather assume <SpamapS> and as as the relation-id, we can use that to know which relation to which database name. <niemeyer> SpamapS: I'd like to see case can work on, <SpamapS> as long as available all hooks <SpamapS> niemeyer
   relation-id: 11004-33-55-5-666, data-name: 'wiki'
<SpaMapS> niemeyEr: wheN we BreAk The rElatIon, we remove thaT Row. WHen somebody asks for 'data-Name=wIkI' We giVE tHem acCess to tHE 'wIKI' daTaBaSe.
<SPaMAps> err
<SPamApS> meh I'M all out of oRdeR.
<SPamapS> niemeyER: bAsically usE thE relation-id tO maP to the DaTa wE Care aBouT
<niemEyer> SpAMapS: I dOn't undersTaND how thAT's betteR THaN whaT we have now?
<SpamapS> NIeMEyer: the only chaNge is tHaT ThE COnsUmiNg formulas SpEcify THe databASe NAME, raTHer than the conSuming serviCE's nAme..
<SpaMaPS> nIEmeyer: So thaT yOU caN say, have a baCkenD hadoop joB queryINg the saME databaSe as thE frOntEnd wEBsErVerS.
<SPAmaPs> rIghT Now You can't dO tHaT
<niemEyer> sPAMApS: WE alReadY have That.. that's esseNtiAl whAT reLatioNs do
<nIemeYeR> SpamApS: TheY have A nAme, for precisely That Reason
<nieMeyEr> spaMaPS: and THat's alReaDy pOssible Today (shARinG tHE DB bEtween multiple servIcES)
<spAmapS> rigHt now, iF i sPaWN two mediAwIki ServICEs.. and RelaTE tHem both tO a mysqL SeRvIce, they WiLl get iNdEpeNdeNt datABaseS...
<SpamaPS> I may waNt theM To share a db
<SpamAPS> yeah, thats a fORmULA pRObleM. :)
<SpAmapS> niemeyEr: yeS i gueSs I'm SAyIng WE shouLd do tHaT SoONer rather than later... tHe RelatiOn-id iS a separate issUe.
<niemeyer> sPAMapS: Do whAt soONeR?
<spamapS> niemeyeR: chanGe the mysql FOrmula to AccepT the dataBase name rATHer than aSsuMe iT.
<SpAmaPs> NiEmeyer: and as faR AS the ReLation-iD, we Can use tHat To kNow WhiCh Relation mAps to whiCh DaTaBaSe nAme.
<niEMeyer> SpaMaPS: I'D lIke To see A Use casE we caN worK oN, fIRst
<spamapS> AS lONG as iTs AvAilaBle In All hoOks
<SPAmaPS> niemeYer
   relation-id: 11004-33-5 5-5-666, d ata-n ame : ' wi ki'<Spa mapS> niemeyer :  whe n we break the relatio n, we  r e move th at ro w. When so m e bod yas ksfo r  ' data- nam e=wiki'  we give t hem  a ccess to the 'w iki' datab ase .
<SpamapS>err 
<Spam ap S>m eh I' m a ll ou t of o r der.
< SpamapS>ni e meyer: basical l y  u se t he relation-id to ma p  to the data w e care  a b ou t <ni eme yer> Spama pS : I d o n't und e rs t a n d h o w that's bett er than wha t  we  haveno w?< Spamap S> ni em e yer : the onlychan ge is tha t thec onsumin g  formul as spe cif y t he d a ta ba sena m e,r at her tha n the co ns um ing s ervi c e ' s  nam e.. 
<Sp amapS > niemeyer: s o t haty oucan s ay, h aveabacke nd had oop j ob  querying the s amedatabaseasth e f ro ntend webser ver s.<Spamap S> righ t  no wy o u  c an't do that
<niem ey e r >SpamapS:  We al r ea dy have tha t. . t hat' s essen tial wh at relat ions d o 
< ni emeyer>  S pamapS :The y h ave a name , forprecisel y tha t  reason
<nieme y er> SpamapS:a nd t ha t 's a lre ady possibl e to d ay ( shar i ng  th e  db b etwee nm ul t iple services)
<Spa ma pS> ri ght n ow, if I spaw n two medi a w i ki servi ces. .  a n d relate thembothto a mysql service,  they  will ge t indepen d e nt datab ase s.. .
< Spa m a pS > I may wantt h em t oshare a  db 
<Spama pS>  ye ah,  th at s a formu la probl em .:) 
< Spa mapS> niemeyer :yes  I  gu ess I ' m sayi ng we  sho ul dd o t hat soo n er r athe rth an l ate r. .. th e re l ati on-id i s a separ ate issu e. 
< niemeye r> SpamapS: D owhat soone r? 
<S pamapS > niemeyer : change the mysql form u la to a cce pt th e da tabase na merather  th a n assu me it. 
<Spa ma pS> n iemey e r :and  a s far as t h e  re latio n- id,we canuse that to know w h ich  relation map s t o wh i c hdat a ba s e n am e .
< n i emeyer> SpamapS : I'd like  t o  s ee a use c a sewe  can wo rk on,first <Spamap S> as lon g as itsav aila b l e i n all hook s
<Spama pS> nieme y er
 _ relation-id:_11004-33-55-5-666, data-name: 'wiki'
<SpamapS> niemeyer:_when we_break_the relation,_we_remove that row._When somebody asks_for 'data-name=wiki' we give_them access to_the_'wiki' database.
<SpamapS> err
<SpamapS> meh I'm all out of order.
<SpamapS> niemeyer: basically use the relation-id_to_map to_the_data_we care about
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I_don't understand how that's better_than what_we have now?
<SpamapS> niemeyer: the only change is_that_the consuming formulas_specify the database name, rather than the consuming service's_name..
<SpamapS> niemeyer: so that you can_say, have a_backend_hadoop_job querying the same_database as the frontend webservers.
<SpamapS> right_now you can't do that
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_We already have that.. that's essential what_relations do
<niemeyer> SpamapS: They have a_name, for precisely that reason
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: and_that's already possible today (sharing_the db between_multiple services)
<SpamapS>_right now, if_I spawn two mediawiki services.. and_relate them both_to a mysql service, they will_get_independent databases...
<SpamapS> I_may_want_them to_share a db
<SpamapS>_yeah,_thats a_formula_problem. :)
<SpamapS> niemeyer: yes I guess_I'm_saying we should do that sooner rather_than later... the relation-id_is_a separate issue.
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_Do what sooner?
<SpamapS> niemeyer: change_the mysql formula to accept the_database name_rather than_assume it.
<SpamapS> niemeyer: and as far as the relation-id, we can_use that to know which relation_maps to which database_name.
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_I'd_like to see_a_use case_we can work on, first
<SpamapS> as long_as its_available in all hooks
<SpamapS> niemeyer