On 05/05/10 06:59, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I tend to agree that from an architectural perspective, the site.xml might better be handled as Obsolete -- it seems that the new mechanism is superior.
The new mechanism is identical, so the site.xml location simply augments the site directory with the same semantics, and costs us very little to maintain.
I don't see a real benefit in marking it obsolete committed at this point, but if the ARC really wants that modification, it certainly causes no change in the implementation, and we can trivially make that change in the materials.
Generally, I don't choose the Obsolete Committed direction for interfaces unless if we truly can't get rid of something but there's a new interface with truly superior and new features. (For things we get benefit from removing and can actually remove, I go straight to EOF as quickly as possible.) In this case, the semantics are the same, so there's no real benefit to encouraging customers to convert if they're happy specifying a monolithic profile rather than one in fragments.
IOW, Obsolete Committed for site.xml wouldn't be my choice, but it's also not critical enough to quibble, and I suspect Tony will feel the same. :)
liane _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list [email protected]
