On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:24:19PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote: > hi folks > > In investigating defects 10123 (stopping manual locations > produces unexpected events) and 10978 (nwamadm report > "incorrect" state) I've been left wondering if we should > really fail state changes which are redundant. At present, > if an already-enabled object is enabled, we > get an "entity is in use" error, while if we try to disable > an already-disabled object, we get an "invalid state" > error. This is inconsistent with SMF which allows enable > requests to succeed even if the object is already enabled. > > I'm proposing that we change this so that such > redundant requests do not trigger an error, and > that we get rid of the NWAM_ENTITY_INVALID_STATE > error code (since it's only used in this scenario). Does > this sound reasonable? Thanks!
I'm assuming that enabling an enabled object, or disabling a disabled object, would result in a no-op? If so, than I do think that's the optimal behavior. However, we also need to weigh the practical question: what code change is involved in making this change? -renee
