I have modified the schema from the original proposal, which I agree was
too verbose. Here is a snippet of data from this new target schema:
<target>
<target_device is_root="true">
<type>
<zpool name="sarahs_pool" action="create">
<vdev>
<mirror>
<disk>
<ctd name="c1t0d0"></ctd>
</disk>
<disk>
<ctd name ="c1t1d0"></ctd>
</disk>
</mirror>
</vdev>
<vdev>
<raidz>
<slice name="c1t2d0s0"></slice>
<slice name="c1t3d0s0"></slice>
As you can see we do have the fully qualified names for disks and
slices. The groupings you see, such as vdev->mirror or vdev->raidz are
there to provide the correct encapsulation of the definition for, in
this case, a zpool, that can have multiple vdevs defined and possibly
different types.
You can specify a slice name without its parent in this schema.
I think this is an improvement, though I'm hoping we can make simple
cases very concise.
This is an attempt to provide a flatter manifest. However, if you want
to not provide the fully qualified name, you can do that as well, for
example:
<disk>
<ctd name="c1t1d0">
<slice name="0">
If a user wants to do this. It isn't required but allowed.
So, I think that we have to allow for both of these naming schemes and
provide the ability to get the parent of a child to get the childs full
name.
Why do we have to allow for both? I'm trying to understand what value
having multiple alternatives provides.
Dave
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
