Alok, good start at this. Some comments below that I don't think
duplicate issues already raised by others:
On 07/ 7/10 06:52 PM, Alok Aggarwal wrote:
I have posted the first version of the DC re-design
spec. The section on VMC is still TBD pending implementation details
that are being worked out.
The document can be found here (Thanks, Dave) -
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/caiman/caiman-docs/distro_constructor/dc_cud_design.pdf
1.1 You might note that the CUD is derived to a great extent from the
existing DC design and lessons learned from its usage.
3.5.3: I found the choice of a separate set_ips_attributes checkpoint
surprising; why this rather than the application doing this directly?
Also, should we retain this, a nit: it's "two checkpoints" not "two sets
of checkpoints".
3.5.4: The consolidation here seems sensible, but an (primarily
implementation) issue to consider is how to make the checkpoints robust.
Right now the live CD-specific checkpoint has an implicit dependency
on GNOME, and further dependencies on a lot of implementation details of
the particular GNOME version. At a high level I'd like to see it made
more robust, through interfaces from GNOME and probably some simple
validation by the checkpoint itself, so that these become less
problematic going forward.
3.5.8: Here you seem to have made the opposite choice from 3.5.3 that I
mentioned above. Could use some explanation why they're different.
3.5.11: In some cases you have subclasses executing parent class's
execute() first (e.g. 3.5.6), in other cases (here) it's second. I
think this has potential for confusion for both users and developers, so
I'd suggest establishing a convention to make this consistent.
3.5.14: Any change to usbgen?
3.7: Overall, I support the approach taken but I do have a nagging
concern about raising the requirements for plugging into DC. I think it
would be nice for users to be able to drop in custom scripts without
having to write Python or get heavily educated in how the engine & DOC
work. I'm wondering if we could provide a fairly simple "CustomScript"
generic checkpoint that could be easily added to a manifest and that
would provide simple bridge logic to retrieve items from the DOC into
environment variables, execute a named script, and report results back.
Any thoughts?
3.12: I'd expect next version of the spec to be specific about the RBAC
configuration that will be supplied.
Dave
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
