Quoth Alan Maguire on Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 10:09:31PM +0000: > David Bustos wrote: > > Yeah, let's try to avoid that. [packing value arrays into properties] > > so we should stick with multiple property groups in > this case?
Yes. Though I guess since snapshots are atomic, needing to combine them into a single property group would only be strictly necessary if you had a consumer which read the properties directly, rather than from a snapshot. Or if you couldn't control when the snapshot was taken. I presume your consumers are reading from a snapshot, and you're developing otherways to control when the snapshot is taken, so I suppose my suggestion was misplaced to begin with. > > Can you give an example of a configuration value where the user wants > > the new value to have a specific relationship to the current value, > > rather than a value the user thinks of a priori? > > not off the top of my head, which may suggest that > this capability may not be strictly necessary. Ok. When you know what configuration you'll store in properties, evaluate how users will want to set them for this. > so to summarize what we've discussed so far, > > - we're going to shoot for a native rename capability > in SCF Well I'm not authorized to say that the team thinks that's a high enough priority that we'll have it done by the time you need it. It seems like the right answer in the long-term, but if we can't have it done for you, then we'll have to understand how you should work around it, and whether it's ugly enough for us to raise the priority. > - we should use separate property groups > for each administrative object controlled by an > instance In general, yes. But again, if it causes you problems, then we may need to pursue alternatives in the short-term. > - as much as possible we should try to use > SMF itself to implement the system-wide locking > needed for instances. I'm not so sure about this. It seems cleaner, but SCF wasn't designed for that and it seems that file locking has an advantage. Let me ask around and make a recommendation afterward. > - regarding instance-level transactions, we'll > need a short-to-medium term approach prior to > their availability as part of extended profiles. Right, though I believe locking (either file locking or property mutexes) and a dedicated snapshot is your proposed short-term approach. Correct me if I'm wrong. Though you did say that for changes which should only be made by a single administrator, it might be ok to do nothing, so we should keep that option in mind, too. David
