[Beaker-devel] First draft of reservations design proposal

Dan Callaghan dcallagh at redhat.com
Mon Sep 30 01:43:25 UTC 2013


Excerpts from Nick Coghlan's message of 2013-09-27 17:05:05 +1000:
> We already have the reservation table, so I wouldn't want to add *yet
> another* concept merely as a generalisation of "has a deadline". It may
> just be a matter of giving the watchdog a reference to the reservation
> in order to cope with the difference between the automated and manual cases.
> 
> In fact, perhaps we could get rid of the "reservation type" field by
> giving the reservation a reference to the recipe as well? Then manual
> reservations would just be those where the recipe reference is NULL. (I
> suspect getting rid of the direct relationship between the recipe and
> the watchdog would be far too invasive a change, but making that a
> potentially triangular relationship and remembering which reservation
> went with which recipe could be worthwhile)

It's already triangular, every recipe has a reference to a reservation 
(recipe.reservation_id).

-- 
Dan Callaghan <dcallagh at redhat.com>
Software Engineer, Infrastructure Engineering and Development
Red Hat, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/beaker-devel/attachments/20130930/453ced74/attachment.sig>


More information about the Beaker-devel mailing list