Open Stack

On 03/08/2015 02:28 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> On March 8, 2015 at 11:24:37 AM, David Stanek (dstanek at dstanek.com 
> <mailto:dstanek at dstanek.com>) wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mike Bayer<mbayer at redhat.com 
>> <mailto:mbayer at redhat.com>>wrote:
>>
>>     can you elaborate on your reasoning that FK constraints should be
>>     used less
>>     overall?  or do you just mean that the client side should be
>>     mirroring the same
>>     rules that would be enforced by the FKs?
>>
>>
>> I don't think he means that we will use them less. Our SQL backends 
>> are full of them.  What Keystone can't do is rely on them because not 
>> all implementations of our backends support FKs.
>
> 100% spot on David. We support implementations that have no real 
> concept of FK and we cannot assume that a cascade (or restrict) will 
> occur on these implementations.
>

And even if the back ends do, we split behavior across identity, 
assignments, and resources ,and FKs cannot  cross those; Thety can and 
will vary independently.

>
> —Morga
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David
>> blog:http://www.traceback.org
>> twitter:http://twitter.com/dstanek
>> www:http://dstanek.com
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150309/1b79d4f0/attachment.html>