James Carlson wrote: > [sorry ... hit 'send' too quickly] > > James Carlson writes: >> Liane Praza writes: >>> I'm filing this on behalf of Alan Maguire. I've submitted it as >>> Closed-Approved-Automatic, as I believe it's an obvious change. >>> However, if there's non-trivial discussion or concern, we'd be happy >>> to convert it back to a fasttrack. >> I hope this is just trivial discussion (;-}), but it seems to me that >> having both "svccfg refresh" and "svcadm refresh" is potentially >> confusing for administrators. I suspect that they're confused about >> the cfg/adm split already (we've certainly seen confusion with the >> zone* commands), and this just adds a little fuel. > > If the definition of the "svccfg refresh" user interface provides all > the needed functionality needed for a generic SMF "refresh" operation, > and it seems it does, then is it possible to work towards making > "svcadm refresh" obsolete?
It's possible, but I'm not sure it's desirable. It seems frustrating to have "svcadm restart" and then have to remember that "refresh", which is often a (mentally) related operation to "restart" is done using a different command, with a significantly different syntax. It'd also need to stay around for compatibility's sake, so wouldn't buy us much more than a stern warning in the svcadm manpage that the subcommand could go away in the future. I'm not sure that warning would lead to more customer satisfaction. If you're generally concerned about the usabilty of the *adm/*cfg command split, I'd think a piecemeal approach to trying to change it would be more likely to make things worse rather than better in terms of confusion. liane
