Darren J Moffat wrote: > Darren Reed wrote: >> Darren J Moffat wrote: >>> Rather than SUNW as a prefix why not "org.opensolaris." or "com.sun" ? >> >> I've no strong opinion about this ... >> do we have some internal structure for such names? >> >> "com.sun.inetd" seems too.... "broad" for my liking... >> "com.sun.solaris.inetd" might be a better/tighter fit. > > or even just "solaris.inetd" which matches the hierarchy used for RBAC > authorisations.
That crossed my mind, but I wasn't sure if it would be desirable to have two name spaces that look the same but are for different purposes. Someone might assume that a project named "solaris.inetd" meant there was an RBAC authroisation or that if there was an RBAC authorisation called "solaris.inetd" that it referred to the same object as the project name. Good engineering would suggest that a project called "solaris.inetd" wasn't used for sendmail and simiarly that an RBAC authorisation bearing the same name also didn't refer to something that wasn't inetd... I don't mind updating the spec to say that names are "solaris.*" and that if there's already an RBAC name for that object then the project must bear the same name. Also if there isn't an exact match in the RBAC names that the name must otherwise fit into the RBAC naming heirarchy. Thus solaris.inetd would become "solaris.network.inetd". Darren
