On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:38:00AM -0700, Gary Winiger wrote: > PSARC/2007/177 SMF Read-Protected Property Storage ARCed/specified the > "read_authorization" property for property groups of type "application" > (SCF_GROUP_APPLICATION). "application" is one of the predefined property > group types. The others are "framework", "dependency", "method" and > "template". SMF also provides for service bundles (manifests) to define other > ``application-specific'' typed property groups as desired. > > I'm working on a service bundle that would be more clear if I could apply > a read_authorization property to an application-specific typed property > group. > > Is there some reason that "read_authorization" properties should not > be applied to ``application-specific'' typed property groups as well? > I can see it being an error in "framework", "dependency", "method" and > "template" typed property groups. > > Is there a reason not to ammend the case (new fast track) to allow for > "application" and ``application-specific'' typed property groups? > Is the code too complex to allow this?
No, this was actually the intended behaviour all along - it was discussed on smf-discuss without objection but I see that it didn't make it into the materials (though I do have a spec with the change, so I'm sure of the cause). This is the reason for all the discussion in the following paragraph about the framework property groups. Unless you feel strongly that this should be a fast-track, I would rather just file this closed approved automatic. > Keith, might it be possible for you to integrate this change if accepted > with your code? I'm happy to code it up later if need be. I'll do this work. It's a trivial change. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
