Discussion on having default fields in all metadata for a lightblue deployment

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Discussion on having default fields in all metadata for a lightblue deployment

jewzaam
Administrator
I think for almost any entity we deploy we're going to want to always have a few fields.  Is it worth making this a feature of lightblue, to define some default fields that are a part of all metadata?  Alternative is manually making sure they're included, which means they'll be missed for sure.

One complexity is these fields would have to be optional.  What if on an entity it's better to make one or all of those default fields required?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion on having default fields in all metadata for a lightblue deployment

bserdar
What is an example for a field that's part of all metadata?

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:32 AM, jewzaam [via lightblue-dev]
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think for almost any entity we deploy we're going to want to always have a
> few fields.  Is it worth making this a feature of lightblue, to define some
> default fields that are a part of all metadata?  Alternative is manually
> making sure they're included, which means they'll be missed for sure.
>
> One complexity is these fields would have to be optional.  What if on an
> entity it's better to make one or all of those default fields required?
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://dev.forum.lightblue.io/Discussion-on-having-default-fields-in-all-metadata-for-a-lightblue-deployment-tp358.html
> To start a new topic under lightblue-dev, email
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from lightblue-dev, click here.
> NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion on having default fields in all metadata for a lightblue deployment

lcestari
I'm not sure which fields but I would guess it would be audit information and other general information about the entity (like last update date and etc).

I would suggest that we could have inheritance in lightblue (or something like that mechanism)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion on having default fields in all metadata for a lightblue deployment

bserdar
Inheritance would be nice, with the disadvantage of having fields that
are implicitly included.

This could also be an external tool, maybe a cmdline tool, that
pre-compiles metadata. It could even be done with available scripting
tools.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:51 AM, lcestari [via lightblue-dev]
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not sure which fields but I would guess it would be audit information
> and other general information about the entity (like last update date and
> etc).
>
> I would suggest that we could have inheritance in lightblue (or something
> like that mechanism)
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://dev.forum.lightblue.io/Discussion-on-having-default-fields-in-all-metadata-for-a-lightblue-deployment-tp358p360.html
> To start a new topic under lightblue-dev, email
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from lightblue-dev, click here.
> NAML