On 01/19/11 12:25 PM, Dermot McCluskey wrote:
Dave,
On 01/19/11 17:03, Dave Miner wrote:
On 01/19/11 09:32 AM, Dermot McCluskey wrote:
...
- vdev names are mandatory and must be unique
I think mandating that vdev's be unique is unnecessary. As I said in
a reply yesterday, they're just a leaf name that can easily be
qualified by pool if necessary. The point here is to make the syntax
a little less rigid as a user interface; we can infer in the
application the proper pool or vdev in most cases, and those where we
can't are invalid and must be rejected by the application.
So, are you saying that if vdev_name is specified on its own, without
zpool_name, then the relevant<vdev>'s name must be unique within
the entire manifest. But if you specify vdev_name in conjunction with
a zpool_name, then the<vdev>'s name need only be unique within
that<zpool>?
Yes.
That should work, but my issue with it is that the documentation required
to explain how this works to the user will become very convoluted. I think
choosing a system that can be concisely and precisely explained has a lot
of benefits also.
I don't think it's that different than the way svcadm handles service
names or pkg handles package names, so I think there's some domain
transferral that would lead users to be happy that we can be smart here.
Dave
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
