David Lutterkort
Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:40:44 -0800
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 09:40 -0500, Hugh O. Brock wrote: > I still think netcf should refuse to repurpose a device to already > exist. In Cole's case, if someone tries to enslave wlan0 to a bridge > and it already exists with an IP address and so on, surely we should > say "You have to undefine wlan0 first" and exit? It seems to me > anything else violates the principle of least surprise...
The flipside is that it is much harder to bring a box into the network config you want - right now, you can just define a few interfaces, no matter how the machine is configured. If you add the safety net, you first have to figue out which interfaces are in use/configured and undefine them. The 'you have to undefine wlan0 first' behavior is absolutely right for an application like virt-manager; users of the netcf API though are assumed to have a view of the overall state of the machine, and add those safety checks according to their logic. Those checks belong in the UI logic though, by the time the actual netcf calls are made, there's little that these checks help with. As a concrete example where this gets in the way: if ovirt wants to configure networking on a machine, should it really have to go around and undefine interfaces just because something might have put down stub configs. David _______________________________________________ netcf-devel mailing list netcf-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/netcf-devel