>> When you said that destroying the active location can have unintended
>> results, that led me to think about it more. Even changing the active
>> location (or any other entity), can have unintended results. This
>> means we should not allow any modifications to active locations, enms
>> and ncps and its ncus. Any active entity should be read-only,
>> non-modifiable.
>>
>
> Hmm - introducing a blanket change like this could have a really negative
> effect
> on the GUI's usability - especially if it's applied to properties within an
> active object.
>
> Fine, I can understand that an object shouldn't be deleted if it's the active
> object, and that's do-able. Similarly w.r.t. the editing the user modifiable
> NCP
> when it's currently active.
>
> I was of the understanding that thinks should be handled atomically - and as
> such a change wouldn't be that severe, but if that's not the case things are
> going to be very unusable in the GUI...
>
> For example, to edit the User NCP, the user would first have to switch to the
> Automatic NCP, and then make changes and then switch back to the User NCP -
> personally I can't see people liking that...
>
You're right, things do get rapidly user-unfriendly if even updates are
not allowed on active objects. The CLI use has an even tougher time
going back and forth between nwamcfg and nwamadm.
As for destroying an active object, it may make sense to prompt the user
and ask if they want to destroy the active object or not.
nwam_{ncp,loc,enm}_get_state() can be use to determin if the object is
active or not. Maybe even committing changes to the active objects can
prompt the user if they (really) want to change the active object.
Anurag
