Agreed. On Feb 9, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Menno Lageman <Menno.Lageman at Sun.COM> wrote:
> 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
