David Bustos wrote: > 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".
Another optional dependency type is what I had in mind. > > 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.) > I'll file an RFE. Much appreciated, tony
