Peter Memishian writes: > > > > Yep. Either Uncommitted or even Consolidation Private would be fine > > > here, just to avoid the need to include it in the man page. > > > > If you choose Consolidation Private, then you have a lot more > > flexibility in the future. > > I know it's not new with this project, but regarding the test gates as > being in the same consolidation as ON always struck me as disingenuous > at best. (Tests are a major consumer of this interface.)
It's quite intentional, and I don't think it's actually disingenuous. Historically, as described in 2005/430, we have treated the specialized test code as either being in the same consolidation as the thing that it tests, or at least as something that's not an "engineering product" itself and thus exempt from any architectural rules that would apply to the rest of the system. There would otherwise be so many rapidly-changing contracted private interfaces that we'd be buried in needless ARC work. There's probably a good argument to be made for weaning the test code from private interfaces and treating it as a full-fledged product with all the normal consolidation boundary rules, but that's not quite where we are today. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[email protected]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
