> > 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.
Our foremost concern should be the resulting administrative model, rather than the internal complexity of the implementation. Is there an administrative justification for having foo and foo-management services? -- meem
