The project team has agreed to add the man page and to use the name "pool_property_is_readonly". I believe that this takes care of all the open issues. The timer is past, and the extension requested at the last PSARC meeting has past. Can I get a +1 from somebody?
Brian Utterback wrote: > > Sebastien Roy wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 08:17 -0800, Brian Utterback wrote: >>> libpool : addition of pool_is_readonly_property public interface >>> >>> A new function "pool_is_readonly_property" to be added to the existing pool >>> property manipulation functions. This function provides a method to >>> determine >>> whether a pool property is readonly or not. >>> >>> The above is to be added to facilitate more economic retrieval of pool >>> properties via poold and other consumers which currently suffer performance >>> issues when retrieving large numbers of properties in the case where we have >>> many components in a pool configuration (see CR 6836221), this change >>> enables >>> consumers to determine whether a property is readonly and therefore can be >>> stored to subsequently be used without having to make further calls into >>> libpool each time the property value is required. >>> >>> The libpool change will require an update to the man page man/3LIB/libpool >> Not architecture, but some man page needs to specify the function >> signature and semantics. It appears that libpool(3LIB) is not the only >> applicable man page. For example, pool_get_property(3POOL) contains a >> number of pool property related functions. >> >> The reason I bring it up is that the proposal doesn't specify what the >> function signature is, which would seem to be a crucial piece of >> information for a Public interface, and a proposed man page would have >> addressed that. >> >> -Seb >> >> > > Fair enough. Given that all 69 of the functions listed in > libpool.so.3lib have their own man page in man3pool, I would say that > it is reasonable to expect a new man page for this one as well. But > now that I think about it, based on what the function does, wouldn't a > better name be pool_property_is_readonly? The original form sounds > like it is retrieving the property "pool_is_readonly" but this test is > whether or not the property is readonly, isn't it? > -- blu It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. - Bruce Schneier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
