Quoth Tony Nguyen on Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 05:03:04PM -0700: > Basic, I'd like to have A "optionally" depends on B to behave as: > > - if B is not enabled, A can still come online > - if B is enabled, it MUST be running for A to come online. The > rationale here is a particular core functionality of A is activated only > when B is enabled. If B is in maintenance, service A should also be > offline or in maintenance since the its activated functionality cannot > operate properly. > > Is such behavior available?
No. > If not, does it make sense to have such > behavior (file RFE)? I think so. I suspect the hard question is whether we need to introduce parameterized dependency types, or if there is a sensible name for this alterative optionality. Perhaps "optional_all_strict" or "strict_optional". As always, it makes sense to file an RFE. If we decide not to do it, at least we'll have a rationale recorded for other users. (Including our future selves.) David
