On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:29:10 -0500
Anurag Maskey <Anurag.Maskey at Sun.COM> wrote:
> Hmmm ... this push does not do enforcing of the read-only property for
> objects, just adds the property to the CLI. I am working on the
> enforcement. I've hit a snag.
>
> NCP's do not have properties, they have sub-objects. This means that
> for the "automatic" NCP, the NCU's are the ones that are read-only. Is
> the NCP itself read-only? If so, then the UI has to filter by the name
> "automatic" to make it read-only.
Is it too complex to add an attribute (meta property) to each object
that states if it is read-only or not?
> If the NCP is not read-only but the
> NCU's are, then more NCU's can be created for the "automatic" NCP.
I don't believe that is the definition of read-only that we want.
> Which is the direction we want here?
Neither of the two you've picked although I guess I could hold my nose
and deal with filtering on name if you held a gun to my head and
promised to mangle and not kill.
mph
