> I feel that taking linkid should be the way to go, even it is may be more > complicated. The reasons for that is: > > a. like you said, the API users won't need to worry about the link name > changes. > > b. It is easy to find problems that it makes sure every libdladm users needs > evaluate the impact of a rename operation. For example, when I merge the UV > gate with Nevada today, it won't remind me that there is interaction between > an rename operation and the NWAM application. > > c. Some applications, if it doesn't care about a link name change at all, it > might simply save the linkid instead of linknames in its structures or even > configurations.
As this points out, we're on a slippery slope -- once applications are regularly interacting with linkids through APIs, it seems like only a matter of time before they're exposing them into the administrative model (and (c) almost does that). This was something I wanted to avoid -- but maybe it can't be avoided. -- meem
