Liane Praza writes: > James Carlson wrote: > Refresh often works for non-SMF configuration as well, which means that > we'd be introducing a requirement to interact with svccfg for a common > set of services which have no such operational requirement today.
OK; good point. I wasn't looking at the foreign restarters. > > It seems you disagree, though, and I don't really have strong feelings > > on it, so I'll fold. :-/ > > I'm not convinced that the choice to obsolete svcadm refresh is obvious, > thus my bias would be to preserve existing, well-known interface. The fuzzy line for me was the idea of having the same subcommand in two very closely related administrative commands. > If anyone thinks that a few more days of discussion will help clarify we > can convert to a fasttrack, but I admit I suspect this is a personal > preference type of discussion. Probably so. I've at least convinced myself that if it is a problem, it can be fixed just as easily later, so I don't need to see a timer here. (Plus, I know I'd be holding up something pretty important for a concern that's pretty marginal ...) > If it's clear it's a more natural administrative model, we'll see advice > on public mailing lists and in documentation move rapidly away from > svcadm refresh, and I'll be happy to file the obsolescence case if that > happens. I'm always happy to obsolete things people don't use. :) ;-} -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
