Jeremy Harris wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: >> I like the refresh/restart split. >> >> Refresh implies that running service state/config can be updated without >> disruption. Restart implies that processes will exit/be killed and be >> restarted. The distinction makes a difference in terms of reliability. > > It sounds like it behaves much as a "service foo reload" in RedHat. > Was any thought given to using the same word for the subcommand? > Is it too late to change? Or accept a synonym?
The original verbs were finalized in 2003, so we weren't planning on changing them as part of this case. :) I don't think diverging to conform with RedHat rather than our other existing commands, methods, and library interfaces is a good idea. (But don't think that's what you were suggesting either.) As to synonyms -- it's always possible, but would probably be a separate case, as the verbs appear in a number of places and it'd be good to do an evaluation of how similar they really are, whether there are others in the RedHat command set which are also worth aliasing, and whether there are any other OSes it'd be good to bridge the gap with. (This is one area pretty much every OS and big distro has their own system and command set for these days.) If I was on ARC, I probably wouldn't accept one synonym without an evaluation of why the full synonym set wasn't being explored. I'm not personally inclined to drive such an effort, as I'm not sure there's huge benefit in differently named (and probably subtly differently behaving) commands having matching verbs/subcommands. However, you might find people who agree that this is important enough to contribute to making it happen either on smf-discuss or sysadmin-discuss if you do want to explore it further. liane
