Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Menno Lageman wrote:
>> Dropping the "Extended" prefix may lead to confusion with the
>> 'classic' accounting described in acct(1M). And the subsystem managed
>> by acctadm(1M) is called Extended Accounting, so having that in the
>> name seems the logical thing to do.
>
> I actually think it is the opposite. The command isn't extendedacctadm
> or eacctadm it is just acctadm.
The fact that the command isn't called extendedacctadm or eacctadm does
not mean that the subsystem can thus not be named Extended Accounting.
It has been called Extended Accounting since PSARC 1999/119 (Tasks,
Projects, and Extended Accounting), it is referred to as Extended
Accounting in the documentation (chapter 4 of the System Administration
Guide: Solaris Containers-Resource Management and Solaris Zones) and in
the acctadm(1M) man page.
Yes, it might have been better if acctadm(1M) had been named otherwise
when it was introduced by PSARC 1999/119, but that does not mean we
should now drop the "Extended" prefix and refer to it as just Accounting
(which is a separate set of tools).
>
> I think the Extended prefix is useless in the RBAC profile name and only
> adds to the confusion already created by having both acct(1M) and
> acctadm(1M) referring to different generations of the subsystem.
I think that leaving out the Extended prefix in the RBAC profiles only
increases the confusion, because we then say Accounting when in fact we
mean Extended Accounting (the service manages the Extended Accounting
subsystem, not the classic accounting tools).
> In RBAC profile naming we already have precedence for multiple
> 'generations' being covered by a single profile. Consider the 'Name
> Services Security' profile it covers commands used in NIS, NIS+ and LDAP.
Understood, but I still think the opportunity for confusion is just to
big without the Extended prefix. Does the 'Accounting Process
Management' RBAC profile refer to process accounting as described in
chapter 16 of the Solaris Administration Guide: Advanced Administration
or does it refer to the process accounting component of the Extended
Accounting facility described in chapter 4 of the System Administration
Guide: Solaris Containers-Resource Management and Solaris Zones? By
keeping the prefix we make it unambigous.
>> The SMF FMRI does not contain the word "accounting" for the same
>> reason. I entertained the thought of using "extended accounting" in
>> the FMRI but decided that was too long to be useful. Instead, I
>> followed the convention used for the FMRI for coreadm(1M).
>
> Now that you mention it I think that it should be called accounting in
> the FMRI. The practice of naming the FMRI after the current CLI
> implementation used to control it isn't so good in my opinion, the FMRI
> should describe the service not the admin interface command, eg it is
> network/ssh not network/sshd and network/system-log not network/syslogd.
I don't think the FMRI should be svc:/system/accounting:process for the
same reason outlined above. These services do not manage Accounting,
they manage Extended Accounting. If using the name of the administrative
command in the FMRI is frowned upon, then perhaps the FMRIs should be of
the form svc:/system/extended-accounting:process.
So I propose to change the names of the RBAC profiles to:
Extended Accounting Flow Management
Extended Accounting Process Management
Extended Accounting Task Management
(i.e. Darren's suggestion, however with the prefix).
And to change the FMRIs to:
svc:/system/extended-accounting:flow
svc:/system/extended-accounting:process
svc:/system/extended-accounting:task
Menno
--
Menno Lageman - Sun Microsystems - http://blogs.sun.com/menno
