Max Zhen wrote:
>
>
> Hmm...maybe we can change the name like:
> network/datalink:default --> network/datalink-management
> network/ip:default --> network/ip-management
>
> So, we split the management services from individual datalink/ip instances.
> And we use the same name that Clearview is using now for datalink
> management service.
>
>
that separation would definitely help from an
implementation perspective - the management
services and datalink/interface instances will
have different dependencies and exec methods -
it would certainly make life easier if they could
inherit these from the service level.
so we'd have something like the following:
1. svc:/network/datalink-management:default
with the present dependencies it has in the UV
gate.
2. svc:/network/datalink:<name>
...
each of which depend on datalink-management
(i don't think they need to depend on policy
engine as the methods are simply to create
the underlying object, not configure it).
3. svc:/network/ip-management:default
which depends on datalink-management.
3. svc:/network/ip:<name>
...
each of which depend on ip-management.
then network/physical:{default | nwam} need
to depend on network/datalink-management
and network/ip-management, as these
are responsible for creating the entities
they manipulate.
alan
