[katello-devel] pulp 1.1 will disallow i18n names for repos... what does that mean for Katello???

[Bryan Kearney]

On 06/26/2012 12:21 PM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:35:22AM -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>> On 06/26/2012 11:32 AM, Eric Helms wrote:
>>> On 06/26/2012 11:15 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>>>> On 06/26/2012 11:13 AM, Justin Sherrill wrote:
>>>>> On 06/26/2012 10:52 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/26/2012 10:48 AM, Og Maciel wrote:
>>>>>>> It all started with this Bz i filed this morning:
>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835586
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then Preethi pointed me to
>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817914
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which then pointed to my discussion in #pulp which can be seen (most
>>>>>>> of it) here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835586#c3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bottom line: are we going to disallow users from creating i18n
>>>>>>> organizations now???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we urlencode the i18n characters and have it JustWork(tm)? That
>>>>>> seems like a much friendlier model.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could do something like that, although it would make it really
>>>>> unreadable, and at that point we may not even want to include it in the
>>>>> name.
>>>>>
>>>>> is having something like:  m%C3%A1n%C3%A1%C3%B1a   in a repo name really
>>>>> helpful?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dunno, I might prefer that if i can get the org and product names to
>>>> be in my native language.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>> Do we really need to be storing the repository name in Pulp?  Why not
>>> generate some unique identifier?
>>>
>>> I would think all that matters is some way to connect the Katello
>>> repository model to the Pulp via some sort of identifier so that we can
>>> retrieve the information we need about it.  And then store the user
>>> defined "name" in Katello.
>>
>> The assumption has been that since the url structure is:
>>
>> $ORG/$ENV/$PRODUCT/$REPOPATH
>>
>> that it makes sense to have them be human readable based off of the
>> name. I am fine with carrying a seperae field which is the
>> ASCII_FRIENDLY version of the name. But, I think we want to show in
>> hte UI the i18n version of the name.
>
> Why not store a (UU)ID instead? This would make renaming organizations
> easier and I think it's not that uncommon. It would make pulp harder to
> use as standalone because it's less readable and I don't know what the
> limits for names are in pulp, but I do think it's a good idea to use
> (UU)IDs.

The feedback we got was that we should try to make the repo urls should 
be human readible. If you are looking at a machine and the url is;

/3232/43432/42432432/SOME URL then it may not be easy to understand what 
the machien will get.

-- bk