Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:26:05 -0500
> Dmitri Pal <> wrote:
>> Steven, please think about the case when the rule needs to be edited
>> in UI and it has some value for DD - say 1.
>> What you display in UI then? If you do not allow to enter days and you
>> not allow more than 24 hours in the hour field you will fail to
>> translate the rule to the proposed UI.
>> The only option would be to show the raw rule in this case. IMO this
>> does not seem like the best option to me.
> May not be the best but it is perfectly reasonable.
>> I think the DD is redundant and other means should be used to schedule
>> windows bigger than 2 days however the HH should IMO allow 1-48 ours
>> to allow specifying a week end outage like:
>> from 1AM Sat to 11PM Sun. If it is more than 2 days it is reasonable
>> to ask to split the rule into several slices.
> I think this is not reasonable at all, it is an arbitrary limit due to
> the "current" thinking around the UI, if you change mind about the UI
> tomorrow, you will be left with the constraint in the grammar.
> This is just backwards.
> Simo.
Keeping in mind that we have just one shot at it, it is unreasonable to
think that the limitations that the UI imposes will ever go away.
Effectively what you and Steven say is that the grammar should dictate
the UI. It is the wrong approach. As well as the vice versa. The UI
should not dictate the grammar.
However the grammar also should not have constructs that would never be
expressed in UI because they are already identified as unusable. In
other words the UI can be subset of what grammar supports but all the
options that grammar supports should be potentially implementable in UI
and usable. If the they never can be implemented in UI in usable way
they should not be in grammar.

Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.

Looking to carve out IT costs?

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to