Michael Hunter wrote: >> You mean you prefer that the walk always be sorted without having to >> specify the flag or changing the order of objects in the files (which is >> contrary to Alan's preference in the bug comments)? >> > > I assume you mean this comment. > > alan>For me, the answer depends on whether we actually store things > alphabetically > alan>or not. If we fix libnwam so we do, I don't think a flag is needed. If we > alan>don't, I think the flag is useful as a non-alphabetical walk would be > quicker. > yes
> The first conditional (second sentence) doesn't apply to this code review. > > The third sentence makes the performance argument (which I thought > ya'all would bring up from the beginning). Given the length of this > list and the use of the API I don't think performance is a strong > enough reason to increase the complexity by an order of magnitude. > I didn't explicitly say performance, but I did mention that keeping the objects sorted in the .conf files will make writes more complicated. It could require that nvlist be sorted (I don't know the innards of nvlists). That implementation is much more complex than the addition of the flag and the flag also gives consumers freedom in how they want to walk the objects. With the addition of vnics, aggrs, etc in the future, the list could be much longer. > I havn't read a response from you to Renee about the ordering but I > agree that straight alpha including the type namne isn't exactly what > we want. > The type name is not compared, but the type enum. In the enum, the link comes before the interface, so that links are listed before the interfaces. I also included sample outputs in the response to her email. Anurag
