Rainer Heilke wrote: > ... > We have a matrix of possibilities. In most (if not all) cases, I would > argue that having "start" be an alias to "enable + some switches" buys > us nothing. (I believe that having "start" at all increases the > documentation similarly, regardless whether it is an alias or a > stand-alone, so that aspect is--to me--moot.) > > So, we are debating two or three issues, and they are still getting > tangled up: > > Should we have a "start" option that has specific implications of > transience, and risk the dangers that presents? (This seems to run > counter to the original development concepts behind SMF, as discussed > here.)
IMHO, yes. At least what I'd like to see is "svcadm start foo" cause foo's start method to be invoked - provided that foo is "offline" to start with - and update the status to be "online". Yes, it should be synchronous (-s) by default so that errors in starting are reported "immediately." > Should this "start" option have independence from "enable" for reasons > previously discussed? (This seems to essentially require "start" to be > a top-level verb.) IMHO, yes. And I think taking this approach makes it easier for start to have (subtly) different behaviour to enable. > If "start" is not independent, does this mean we should change the > operation of "enable" to implicitly do a "clear" or "disable" first, > and risk the dangers that presents as discussed in this debate? (If > not, does "start" even serve a purpose?) Changing the way enable behaves is not on the cards. Darren
