On Mar 7, 2008, at 7:04 PM, James Carlson wrote: > >> What's wrong with an /etc/something.something file? Such files can >> easily be edited, grep'd, compared, backup up, copied, saved, moved, >> commented etc etc. All these nice features are at least more >> difficult >> when the properties are in SMF. >> >> So, my 2 cents on the question >>> Which way is the SMF community going? >> is that it shouldn't become a repository for application properties. > > That's the part of your response that I find baffling. I don't think > that's quite true ... unless I've greatly misunderstood what SMF is > supposed to be about. > > I agree that complex and detailed configuration (think: BGP policy in > Quagga) likely has no place in SMF because the semantics just aren't > rich enough, but surely basic configuration parameters for the system > services do belong there, right? > > Or are all of the projects that've placed those parameters there > already (such as Greenline's changes to inetd, or the routeadm > changes), and the ones that plan to do it in the future (NWAM at one > point was talking about it for interfaces), and the original SMF > project itself (which discussed migrating configuration over time) all > misguided?
Probably I am misguided but .. in the 2002/547 ARC isn't anything that says that application configuarables should go to SMF. I think the desire to put every configurable in SMF's repository is of a later date or undocumented. I am not saying all these projects are miguided. I expressed my concerns as a user, which is what I am. Properties in SMF's repository limit me as I can't grep, zip, zap, copy, comment them. The advantages (snapshot & rollback) don't outweigh. IMHO, there's only one driver I see fit for a central configuration repository and that is an administrative GUI. Obviously, I am just too late with raising my concerns. No big deal. I'll eventually learn to live with svccfg as I did with regedt32, regedit, smit*, sam, and odm*. But, after investing my time in learning them, I ask: what have they done for me, apart from being in the way? > > > I had thought that the reason we treat all new configuration files > (/etc/dladm/*) as Private was that they're just a temporary expediency > until they can be redesigned into SMF. Is that not the case? > > -- > James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com > > > Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 > 2084 > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 > 1677 -- Joost Mulders + email: joost.mulders at sun.com Technical Specialist + phone: +31-33-45-15701 Client Solutions + fax: +31-33-45-15734 Sun Microsystems + mobile: +31-6-5198-7268 -= Anything not done right, has to be done again =-
