Sebastien Roy wrote:
> The potential for the implementation to get complex is a fair
> observation (although I don't think that preventing persistent change to
> a temporary object is hard to do), but I don't think that implementation
> complexity should necessarily result in a change in project scope or
> requirements.
FWIW I'm not primarely concerned about implementation complexity, but
about the complexity visible to the admin.
With temporary objects all over the complex dependencies we have
(physical datalinks, vlans and vnics, aggregations, ipmp groups,
tunnels, ip addresses) the administator might find that in wanting to
make a particular object or property perstent s/he will get an error
message that some other object, that s/he has never heard about, is
temporary hence the operation fails.
That doesn't sound like good usability.
> I think we need to have a big picture in mind depicting the ultimate
> administrative model for networking. We can draw requirements out of
> that. Without this picture, we're making design decisions on a whim,
> which is uncomfortable.
I take objection to you calling me that ;-)
Erik
