> > But I personally think that temporary datalinks should also be > > represented as SMF instances, as they do provide datalink services. > > > yeah, i can see that there's a reasonable argument to do this. i think > the key question is whether we expect the SMF representation > to be complete regarding what is configured on the system, > versus being complete about what is _persistently_ configured > on the system. the latter is probably less intuitive to administrators, > but i don't know that that is such a big problem - my assumption > is they'll be using dladm to query link status rather than > "svcs datalink/*". the problem i see with exhaustively > representing temporary configuration is having to undo the > temporary portions of the configuration explicitly (i.e. the > instances that were created via temporary commands) on > reboot.
I thought SMF already had a way to mark e.g. property groups as being temporary? Is that functionality insufficient? FWIW, I agree with Cathy that temporary datalinks should be represented as SMF instances, for the same reason that temporarily enabling a service still causes that service to show up in `svcs'. -- meem
