On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:42:34AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> [2007-10-31 14:11]: > > Also, if we use a placeholder service then we'd like there to be a > > refresh_on dependency attribute, like restart_on. But there is no such > > attribute. I've filed: > > Just so I understand, why isn't restart_on="refresh" sufficient? > (It's how the milestone/name-service dependency some services have is > handled, and seems to be similar on first glance.)
Because restarting the svc:/network/smb/server service would reset client connections, which the i-team considers too disruptive. These would be sufficiently rare events that users might not mind too much. Is it your opinion that emulating refresh_on is not worthwhile and that we should use restart_on until refresh_on is added? Also, do you recommend the placeholder service approach, or any others? Nico --
