On 11/7/06, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul M wrote: > > One drawback to this that I can see is the following: > > > > - suppose you mount a containerfs with controllers cpuset and cpu, and > > create some nodes, and then unmount it, what happens? do the resource > > nodes stick around still? > > Sorry - I let interfaces get confused with objects and operations. > > Let me back up a step. I think I have beat on your proposal enough > to translate it into the more abstract terms that I prefer using when > detemining objects, operations and semantics. > > It goes like this ... grab a cup of coffee. >
That's pretty much what I was envisioning, except for the fact that I was trying to fit the controller/container bindings into the same mount/umount interface. I still think that might be possible with judicious use of mount options, but if not we should probably just use configfs or something like that as a binding API. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
