> We actually proposed to do this in the early stages of the Clearview > design. The datalink-management service was going to have one property > group per datalink, with link configuration currently in datalink.conf > represented as properties within each group. Dan Groves actually went > as far as implementing this, and it worked quite well. > > During design review, discussions with various folks resulted in our > backing off of this plan and going back to a flat file. The reason was > because this approach didn't appear to be making progress toward (and > was believed to be counter to) a perceived ultimate goal of representing > each interface as a service, and placing each interface's configuration > within each instance's properties. It was also deemed to be using SMF > as a configuration dumping ground. > > That said, this was years ago, and perhaps some of the operational > experience with Fishworks may break down a bit of the ideology > surrounding SMF and give projects more flexibility with how they > practically can use it. > > I think it would be good to get the group together to talk about what > Fishworks has learned from this model.
Agreed, but it will need to wait a few weeks as there are some deadlines that cannot be moved that will preclude my availability. -- meem
