On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Adam Young <ayoung(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Delete of the relationship should be a delete. Even if we hold on to
the Data of Hysterical Raisins.
BTW, when we un entitle a consumer, we shouldn't necessarily delete the
entitlement, should we? From what I saw in the slide show today, the
entitlement itself may be reused, just bound to a different consumer.
ISn't this why we have two tables: cp_entitlement and
cp_consumer_entitlements.
Not really, pools are created and no entitlements exist for that pool
at the time. The entitlement only exists when a bind happens, when
unbound the entitlement is deleted and in theory, returned to the
pool. If someone else were to make use of it, a new entitlement (in
terms of a new database row) would be created. I can't remember why I
did join table vs just a join column with consumer, probably something
misguided. :)
Cheers,
Devan
--
Devan Goodwin <dgoodwin(a)rm-rf.ca>
http://rm-rf.ca