thanks for the comments! responses inline... Renee Danson Sommerfeld wrote: > Hi Alan, > > Just a few comments. The first two are really code nits; the third > is a point I'm not clear on. > > Thanks! > renee > > nwamadm.c: rather than moving the check of the nwam service state out > to the individual functions where it matters, could you make the > check in main() conditional? That is, have a set of subcmds that > require nwam to be online, and continue to do the state check in > main() if the requested subcmd is in that set. > > sure. I could add a boolean to the cmd structure that specifies if the command requires nwamd to be running. > libnwam.h'57: not sure why this change was needed? > > oops. I had thought I'd need another flag, turned out I didn't. > libnwam_loc.c'loc_set_enabled(): It looks like we just enable/disable > as needed while walking the list of locations. Yep. > What happens if > we hit the to-be-enabled location before other, currently enabled > locations? Does this mean there will be a window where multiple > locations are enabled? What's the consequence of that? > > The first-encountered location is enabled, it won't be an issue for the other location since as part of the enable we do a request to nwamd to enable the to-be-enabled location. Then the to-be-disabled location will be marked as enabled=false. So in other words, no negative consequences as far as I can see.
Thanks! Alan
