[ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts

[Itamar Heim]

On 05/18/2014 08:42 PM, Barak Azulay wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika at redhat.com>
>> To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag at redhat.com>
>> Cc: devel at ovirt.org
>> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 4:08:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, devel at ovirt.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:33:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: devel at ovirt.org
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:56:50 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: devel at ovirt.org
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:20:18 PM
>>>>> Subject: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I have a feeling there is some inconsistency in using entity names in
>>>>> the
>>>>> DB
>>>>> scripts.
>>>>> For example, should we use Host or VDS?
>>>>> I am not talking about existing tables or columns but about new ones
>>>>> (and
>>>>> new
>>>>> stored procedures).
>>>>>
>>>>> I am quite sure I saw patches containing both approaches.
>>>
>>> I guess that includes any recent patches around the network area.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right
>>>> I think old should be kept until we have the time to do a global
>>>> find/replace
>>>> of all old names.
>>>
>>> Without enabling the "new" (or more appropriate) naming to new code we:
>>> 1. Increase the amount of 'old' code in the system (gaining more debts)
>>> 2. As a result - more work when and if global change will take affect.
>>> 3. Double the entire work flow: code + review.
>>>
>>> That change should start at some point, and having it incrementally is a
>>> valid approach
>>> to achieve that goal.
>>
>> I basically agree, but first someone (that can say that) should say that we
>> are going to do that and allocate resources to this tasks , unless , you are
>> left in hybrid ugly condition
>
>
>
> Guys please post the list of Entities and let's agree on new names.
>
> Once this is done - each maintainer/reviewer should start enforcing that policy in his reviews.
>
> I don't think this task should have specific task force allocated for that.
>
> As a guide line - Those patches (rename patches) should be separated from the logic change (on top of the name change patches).

worth checking for alignment/planning with the gui move to rest api, 
which will disentangle it from the backend business entities.
(doesn't have to wait until GUI finishes the move, just communicated)