James Carlson wrote: > I'm no fan of the "must dial 1 first" school of interface design, but > I'm not sure that having failure into offline mode occur in two > different orders (reverse order if done by administrative action, > forward order if done by actual service failure) is a good thing.
Yeah, but... they *are* two different cases. One is an orderly shutdown. The other is recovery from a failure. Nicolas Williams wrote: > "Never" is a strong word :) Yes, but it makes things so much simpler :-) >> > (I suppose that that rule must be violated when a service dies, when you > > Exactly. > >> > have no choice but to shut down dependents after the dependency, but I >> > would say that it should never be violated in non-failure cases.) > > Well, no, SMF shouldn't stop dependents just because a dependency died. [...] You're right, I oversimplified the failure case. However, we're not talking about the failure case here - we're talking about an orderly shutdown due to administrative action.
