state/api.State authTag vs tag

[William Reade]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, John Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>
wrote:

> I feel like if we want the effect of authTag (record the tag that we
> actually used to login), then we can just cache it in tag.
>

+1. tag is all we want today, and when we rewrite/replace worker/deployer
we can put the right tags in the right places.


>
> John
> =:->
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:25 PM, William Reade <
> william.reade at canonical.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:58 PM, John Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I feel like we should consolidate these fields. And if we need "authTag"
>>> to match Login then we should be setting "tag" there instead. (That will be
>>> better for any case where we Login late, given that we probably still would
>>> want to be able to use anything like DebugLog URLs.)
>>>
>>
>> They currently match but are not guaranteed to; in particular, when we
>> consolidate the agents such that a machine agent is running the uniters
>> deployed on that machine, they will definitely not match.
>>
>> I'm guessing this is just a case of 2 different people working on the
>>> code and not realizing the data was available somewhere else, but I figured
>>> I'd run it by people in case I didn't understand what the use case was.
>>>
>>
>> However, I don't think we have a good reason to keep authTag around at
>> the moment. There'll be some degree of churn when we do the consolidation,
>> and authTag will itself be wrong; I fear that having it around will nudge
>> us into a worse solution than we'd end up with if we just handled it when
>> we needed to.
>>
>> Anyone have a reason *not* to drop it?
>>
>> Cheers
>> William
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20140616/3c111983/attachment-0001.html>