* Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> [2007-10-31 19:41]: > 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. So the daemon will cache sufficient credential state so that these connections (from the previous naming discipline) will still be operating correctly? (Enough state to also debug this situation?)
(I suppose a question about robustness on non-administrative restarts is in order: does the daemon cache any state outside itself so that it can handle actual errors without affecting the existing connections? Could it?) > 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? I think the placeholder approach can work. I don't have a strong opinion about refresh_on. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
