Dave Miner wrote: > Sarah Jelinek wrote: >> Hi Dave and Jack, >> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd view it as an important requirement that we be able to perform >>>>> full semantic verification on the server. Why is this regarded as >>>>> optional? >>>> It's not that it's optional on the server, it's that the server >>>> cannot provide the full client context to do full validation. Of >>>> course we want to do as much validation as we can on both the >>>> server and the client. >>>> >>> >>> I would expect that a user could supply whatever context we desire >>> to use, either synthetically or via importation of some client >>> context that was generated from a real client. From the point of >>> view of the validator, the client is just a bunch of parameters, >>> which can also be supplied via other avenues. Requiring real, live >>> clients in order to validate thus seems unnecessary. >> >> I don't think in all validation scenarios we require real, live >> clients. But, we have to know that some validation is not possible if >> we don't have the context for which we are doing the validation. The >> issue with some of the semantic validation, specific to the client, >> is that beyond simple 'syntax' checking or format checking of >> something like a target device specification, without a live client >> or a set of client data that provides this information, it is hard to >> validate the schema. So, are you proposing we provide for 'importing' >> the client data if the user so desires so we can do more contextual >> validation when setting up a service? I am not sure why we would want >> to do that actually. >> >> Seems to me a service is independent of the client. Clients discover >> services, and one service will be used to produce an installed >> system, but the manifests that are provided in that service may apply >> to many clients. Providing this contextual semantic validation as a >> user is setting up a service seems to break what our model is. As you >> note, we would have to have some data regarding the client to do this >> type of validation, which implies that the user setting up the >> service would have to know which clients the service applied to, if >> they wanted to make use of it. >> >> During specific client setup, that is installadm create-client, we >> could do this. >> > > Apparently there's some confusion. I wasn't suggesting that this be > done specifically at the time a manifest is installed into the > service, but as a manifest development tool used outside that > process. It's fairly unlikely that you'd have access to a client > against which to validate even in the create-client case.
Ah.. ok, I get what you are saying. Sure, this would be a good tool to have for development. thanks for the clarification. sarah **** > > Dave
