David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > >> Paul Menage won't agree. He believes that interface must come first. >> I also remind you that the latest beancounter patch provides all the >> stuff we're discussing. It may move tasks, limit all three resources >> discussed, reclaim memory and so on. And configfs interface could be >> attached easily. >> > > There's really two different interfaces: those to the controller and those > to the container. While the configfs (or simpler fs implementation solely > for our purposes) is the most logical because of its inherent hierarchial > nature, it seems like the only criticism on that has come from UBC. From > my understanding of beancounter, it could be implemented on top of any > such container abstraction anyway.
beancounters may be implemented above any (or nearly any) userspace interface, no questions. But we're trying to come to agreement here, so I just say my point of view. I don't mind having file system based interface, I just believe that configfs is not so good for it. I've already answered that having our own filesystem for it sounds better than having configfs. Maybe we can summarize what we have come to? > David > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
