On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 18:04 -0400, Raymond Dans wrote: > > Scott wrote: > > > > The intent is: > > > > The configAccess becomes the most liberal defined by any > > process (that is, if any says it is writable, then it is: it > > is read-only only if all processes declare it so). > > > > The 'required' attribute actually controls the connections > > between the resource and the process, and is not stored as an > > attribute in the process itself. It determines whether or > > not the resource is added to the mRequiredResources list in > > the SipxProcess object. > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation Scott. The issue I'm having is with coding > support for the SQL DB resource which requires a number of elements: > server, dbname, user name, user password and db driver. If only one > object is created per DB, then it removes the capability of a process > using a database with a different username or on a different server. I > guess I could create the object on more than the db name but append the > server and user name as well. Would this be acceptable?
I think so. The one problem I can envision is that the name may then be hard for anything outside the resource itself to reconstruct. This would only become a problem if we wanted sipXsupervisor to mediate access to it (the configAccess attribute) the way we do now for IMDB and file objects. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
