On 02/24/09 09:30, Michael Schuster wrote: > On 02/24/09 09:19, Sangeeta Misra wrote: >> On 02/24/09 08:55, Michael Schuster wrote: > >>> but this got me thinking: is there a need for the "base" of the >>> server ID to be distinct from the server group (name)? >> >> What is a server is being included in two seperate groups? Then at >> least in one case one of the servers in the server group will have a >> server with a base that is different than group name. Or are you >> planning to have a server have multiple server ids ? > > according to Kacheong, it is feasible to have the same back end server > for different rules behave be treated as a seperate entity for each of > these rules (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I see no reason not > to do it that way. I assume you are stating that in the above case a server can have multiple serverid ( depending on how many server groups its included on) . That is OK by me.
If you limit the serverid's base to be that of server group name, then why ask the user to specify a serverid? If he specifies a server group name, then we already have determined the "base" portion of all teh servers in that group right? Or are you saying the the user can pick the starting nuber for the ID part of the server ID, but the "base" part of the serverID will always be the server groupname? Sangeeta
