sowmini.varadhan at sun.com wrote:
> that's a good point. For the features being listed in the current
> proposal, the only operations that do not have the above dependancy
> are those that apply to all interfaces (i.e., the setting property
> with no interface specified). For the rest,
> one approach is to say that when a specific <interface> is targetted,
> the persistence attribute of the operation is derived
> from the persistence attribute of the <interface> itself. Alternately
> (which is what I think you are suggesting) we could make this simple
> and say that all commmand that target a specific <interface> are
> automatically persistently applied.
If the user interface has a '-t' option to specify "transient" then I
think you need to honor it, or generate an error. That limits your choices.
If all interface will be persistent across reboots, then it might make
sense to also have all the property settings be persistent.
The choices depend on which core objects can be transient.
Erik
