aker> niemeyer, i have an idea
<niemeyer> daker: You may want to use -e
<niemeyer> daker: Rather than stdin
<daker> i'll just use MySQLdb
<niemeyer> daker: Otherwise you'll have to open a file and extend your do() function to replace stdin
<niemeyer> daker: Ah, that works too! :)
<SpamapS> niemeyer: so the idea of using relation id is actually good
<SpamapS> niemeyer: thinking through it, using service name for database names is actually VERY limiting.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I'm not entirely sure yet, to be honest
<SpamapS> niemeyer: otherwise we can't have two services use the same database.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Agreed, for that kind of use case a relation id would be great
<niemeyer> SpamapS: The question is more around the lines of reestablishment
<SpamapS> niemeyer: so I think we need to have the consuming services provide us with a clear hint. It may usually be service name.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: It isn't clear that what we want to happen when one removes and readds a relation
<niemeyer> s/that what/what/
<SpamapS> niemeyer: IMO, thats up to the formula to document.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I think we need to guide people here
<niemeyer> SpamapS: So that formulas implement it somewhat consistently, and follow a principle of least surprise
<SpamapS> niemeyer: I was thinking of mapping relation-id to the requested context like "demo-wiki".. then if something else asks for demo-wiki, give them access.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I don't get that last idea
<SpamapS> niemeyer: can add an optional setting of'maxrelations' for each database context too.. so you can say'maxrelations=1' if you want to have exclusive databases.
<SpamapS> niemeyer: so the relation-id is just a uuid, so there'd be a table..
aker > niemeyer, i have an idea 
 < niemeyer > daker: You may want to use -e 
 < niemeyer > daker: preferably than stdin 
 < daker > i'll barely use MySQLdb 
 < niemeyer > daker: Otherwise you'll have to afford a file and extend your do () routine to substitute stdin 
 < niemeyer > daker: Ah, that works excessively! :) 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: so the idea of use relation i d is actually good 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: think through it, using service name for database names is actually VERY limiting. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: I'm not entirely sure so far, to be honest 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: otherwise we can't have two service use the same database. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Agreed, for that kind of use case a sexual intercourse i d would be great 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: The question is more around the lines of reestablishment 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: so I think we necessitate to have the consuming services provide us with a clear hint. It may usually be service name. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: It isn't clear that what we want to happen when one removes and readds a relation 
 < niemeyer > s / that what / what/ 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: IMO, that s up to the formula to document. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: I think we need to steer people here 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: So that rule implement it somewhat consistently, and follow a rationale of least surprise 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: I was thinking of function relation - id to the requested context like " demo - wiki ".. then if something else ask for demo - wiki, give them access. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: I don't get that last idea 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: can add an optional setting of'maxrelations' for each database context too.. so you can say'maxrelations=1' if you want to give birth single database. 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: therefore the relation - id is just a uuid, so there'd be a table..
akeg> niemeyer, i have an idex
<niemeyer> daker: You mab want fo use -e
<viemeyer> daker: Rather than svdin
<eaker> i'll just use MySQLdb
<nkemeyer> dwker: Othwrwiww you'll hats to opcu a fjpe aud extend your dp() function to replace stgiv
<nnemeyer> daker: Ah, that works too! :)
<SpamwpS> niekejer: so the idew of tsinf relation id is actually good
<SpamzpS> niekeyer: thinkinb through it, using service namf for database namfs is actuaoly DWRY limiting.
<viemeyer> SkakapS: I'm noj entirely sure yet, to be honest
<Rpama'S> niemeyer: orhegfise we can'v have two services use tha same catabase.
<niemeycr> SpemapW: Agreed, for that kinv of use case a relajion id woglb be great
<niemeyer> SpqmqpS: Tve qgestkin ks joce zround thx lines of deestablishnent
<SpamapS> niemeyet: fi I think we heed tj rave the consuming services provide us fitg a clear hint. It may uwually be service namg.
<niemeyer> FpamapS: It isn't clear that what we want to happen when une rcmovdw wnd readds a relation
<niemeyer> s/that what/what/
<S[zmspX> niemeyer: IMO, thats up tp hhr formula to ducumenc.
<hismeyer> SpamapS: I tjink we need to guide peolle here
<niemeyer> SpamapS: So that formulcs umplement it somewkat consisteutly, amd foklow a principle of leart shrprise
<SpamwpS> niemegdr: I was thinkine on mdpping rtuation-id to the rqquested rontert like "aemo-eiki".. tren if somfthinn else asks for deml-wiki, ghve them afcess.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I don't gev that last iced
<SpdmapS> nizmeyer: can add an o[tional settiny of'maxrzlatiovs' for eacg databese context eoo.. so you cat say'maxrelatmons=1' if yju wqnt ro have dxclusive datanases.
<SpamckS> niemeyee: so the relation-iv is nust a uuid, so cketw'd be a table..
aker> niemeyer, i have an idea <niemeyer> may to use <niemeyer> daker: Rather use <niemeyer> daker: Otherwise have to open file and extend your do() function replace stdin <niemeyer> daker: Ah, that works too! :) <SpamapS> niemeyer: so the of using relation id is actually good <SpamapS> niemeyer: thinking through it, using name database is VERY limiting. <niemeyer> SpamapS: I'm not entirely sure yet, to be honest <SpamapS> niemeyer: otherwise we have two services use the same database. <niemeyer> Agreed, for that kind use case a relation id be <niemeyer> SpamapS: question more the lines of <SpamapS> niemeyer: so I think we need to have the consuming services provide us with a clear It may service name. SpamapS: isn't that what we happen when one removes and readds s/that what/what/ <SpamapS> niemeyer: IMO, thats up to formula to <niemeyer> SpamapS: I think we need guide people here <niemeyer> SpamapS: So that formulas it somewhat consistently, and follow a principle of least surprise <SpamapS> niemeyer: I was thinking relation-id to the requested like "demo-wiki".. then something asks demo-wiki, them access. SpamapS: I don't get that last idea <SpamapS> niemeyer: can add optional setting of'maxrelations' for each database context too.. so you if want to have databases. <SpamapS> niemeyer: so relation-id just a uuid, so a
aker> niemeyer, i have an idea
<niEmeyer> dakeR: You mAy wAnt To Use -e
<NiemEyer> daker: RatheR Than Stdin
<daker> i'll just use MysQLdb
<NiEMeyeR> DaKer: OtHerwise YOu'LL HavE tO oPen A fILe And exTenD your do() Function to RepLaCe stdin
<niemeYEr> Daker: Ah, thaT woRks too! :)
<Spamaps> niEmeyer: So The IDea of UsiNg relAtion iD Is actuAlly good
<SPaMApS> nieMEyer: thiNKInG thrOugh it, using servicE NaME for database naMes is aCtUAlLY vERy liMiting.
<niemEyEr> SpaMApS: I'm noT EnTIREly SUre yet, to be honEst
<SpamapS> nIEmeYer: othErWisE We can't Have tWo SErvIces use the sAme dAtabase.
<niEmeyer> sPamapS: AGReed, for That kiNd oF usE casE A rElAtiOn ID woULd Be gREat
<Niemeyer> spAmApS: ThE queSTION is mOre ArouNd the Lines of reestaBliShmeNT
<SpAmapS> NiemeYer: sO I Think We need To havE tHe consuming servIces Provide us WitH a CleAr Hint. IT May usuAllY be Service Name.
<nieMEyeR> SPAMAps: It isn't clear that whAt WE WaNt to happEn when ONe ReMOves and rEaDds A relATIon
<niEmeyER> s/That what/What/
<SpAMaPS> NiemeyeR: ImO, thatS uP to The FormuLA to dOcumenT.
<niemeyeR> SpamAPS: I think we need TO guide people hERe
<NIEmEYer> SPamApS: So that foRmulAS impLemeNT iT soMEwhat ConsiStENtLY, and follow a principlE oF least SurprIse
<SpamapS> nieMeyer: I was tHINKing of maPpinG ReLAtion-id to the reQuestEd context lIKe "demo-wiKi".. theN if sometHing else aSKS for demo-WikI, giVe tHem ACCeSs.
<niemeyer> SpaMAPS: I dOn'T get thaT laSt idea
<SPamApS> NieMeyEr: Can add an oPtional sEtTiNg Of'MaxRelatIOns' for eaCh DatAbAse ConteXT too.. so You caN say'MaXrELatIons=1' if yOU wANT to hAvE eXcluSivE dAtabaSes.
<SPAmaPS> niemeYer: so the rElaTIon-iD iS jUst a uuiD, so there'd be a tAbLe..
aker> niemeyer, i have anidea
<niem eyer>  da ker :Youmaywant to use -e <nie meyer> daker: Rather t han s td i n
<d a ke r> i' ll just us e MyS QL db 
<n ie m ey er> d ake r: Othe rwise you' llha ve to open a fi le and ext end  your do() f unc tion t orep l ace s tdi n
<ni emeyer >  daker : Ah, tha tw orks t o o! :)
< S p am apS>  niemeyer: so the id e a of using rel ationid is a ctu all y good
<Sp am apS>n iemeyer :  t h i n kin g  through it,using servi c e n ame fo rdat a base n amesis act ually VERYlimi ting.
<ni emeyer >  Spamap S : I'm n ot ent ire lysure ye t,  to  b e  ho n es t
< S pam apS> nie me ye r: ot herw i s e we c an' t ha ve tw o services us e t he s a medatab ase.<nie me yer>Spamap S: Ag re ed, for that ki nd o f use cas e a  r ela ti on id wouldbegre at
<nie meyer>S pam ap S : Th e question is more  a r o un d the li nes of re es t ablishme nt 
<S pama p S > nie meye r :so I thi nk wen ee dto have  t he con su min g s ervic e s pr ovideus witha cle a r hint. It may usually be se r vi c e  n a me.<ni emeyer> Spa mapS :  Itisn' t  c lea r  that  what  w e  w a nt to happen when o ne  remov es an d readds a re lation
<ni e m e yer> s/t hatw ha t /what/
<Spamap S> ni emeyer: IM O , thatsup to  the for mula to d o c ument.
< nie mey er>  Sp a m ap S: I think we n eedto  guidepeo ple her e
< nie mey er>  S pamapS: S o that f or mu la simp lemen t  it some wh atco nsi stent l y, and  foll ow a  p ri n cip le of l e as t surp ri se 
<Sp ama pS > nie meye r : I  was th inking of  ma p ping  r el ation-i d to the requ es ted contex tlik e "dem o - wiki"..then if something elsea sks for  de mo-wi ki,give them  ac cess.<ni e meyer>  Spama pS: I  d on' t get t h a tlas tidea
<Spam a p S>nieme ye r: c an addan optional settin g  of 'maxrelations ' f or e a c hdat a ba s e c on t ext t oo.. so you can  say'maxre la t io ns=1' if y o u w an t to ha ve excl usive databas es.
<Spam apS> niem ey er:s o  th e relation -id is j ust a uui d , sot he re'dbea tabl e. .
aker> niemeyer,_i have_an idea
<niemeyer> daker: You_may want_to_use -e
<niemeyer>_daker:_Rather than stdin
<daker>_i'll just use_MySQLdb
<niemeyer> daker: Otherwise you'll_have to open_a_file and extend your do() function to replace stdin
<niemeyer> daker: Ah, that works too!_:)
<SpamapS>_niemeyer: so_the_idea_of using relation id is_actually good
<SpamapS> niemeyer: thinking through_it, using_service name for database names is actually VERY_limiting.
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: I'm not_entirely sure yet, to be honest
<SpamapS> niemeyer: otherwise we_can't have two services use the_same database.
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_Agreed,_for_that kind of use_case a relation id would be_great
<niemeyer> SpamapS: The question is more_around the lines of reestablishment
<SpamapS> niemeyer: so_I think we need to have_the consuming services provide us_with a_clear hint. It may usually_be service name.
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: It_isn't clear that_what we want to happen when_one removes and_readds a relation
<niemeyer> s/that what/what/
<SpamapS> niemeyer:_IMO,_thats up to_the_formula_to document.
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: I think_we_need to_guide_people here
<niemeyer> SpamapS: So that formulas_implement_it somewhat consistently, and follow a principle_of least surprise
<SpamapS> niemeyer:_I_was thinking of mapping_relation-id to the requested context_like "demo-wiki".. then if something else_asks for_demo-wiki, give_them access.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I don't get that last idea
<SpamapS> niemeyer: can_add an optional setting of'maxrelations' for_each database context too.._so you_can_say'maxrelations=1' if you_want_to have_exclusive databases.
<SpamapS> niemeyer: so the relation-id is_just a_uuid, so there'd be a table..