On 03/27/2010 08:29 AM, Devan Goodwin wrote:
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. :)
You had a thought of having an entitlement span two consumers.
-- bk