Nicolas Droux wrote: > Cathy, > > Regarding /etc/datalink.conf (page 58 of your design document): is there > a particular reason why you haven't adopted SMF to associate data-links > with their properties? [1] It seems that there is an opportunity to > model each data-link as instances of a new (transient) data-link > service. Each data-link instance could then be associated with a set of > properties, accessed and managed through libscf(3LIB), svcprop(1M), > visual panels, etc. > While I understand where your request comes from, I don't think make dladm configuration SMF aware is necessarily part of the vanity naming project. There are other parts of dladm configurations (like the aggregation configuration, wireless configuration) come before the vanity naming work.
But agree it's certainly doable and it is nice to have it especially because SMF seems to be the right direction to go. Before we commit to do SMF, we'd like to understand better about your request. We think that whether the link configuration is SMF aware or it is stored in a /etc configuration file is purely implementation detail, and it doesn't affect the administrative model and it is not anything exposed to the customer. Do you agree on this? Or are you thinking of something more, like making it a part of SMF service model, that "link" can be a service that administrative can use the SMF to manage its property? If it is the latter, we really think it needs more thought and it falls out of the scope of Clearview. There is another question related and maybe someone on the smf-discuss alias have the answer: how to define the commitment level of a SMF property? Is there any way to warn users when they try to manipulate SMF properties which is not stabilized yet? Thanks - Cathy > Thanks, > Nicolas. > > [1] a footnote of that same page claims that using SMF is "outside the > scope of this component". It seems to me that it is indeed within the > scope of the project, since the project is adding the new repository to > Solaris. > > On Sep 20, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Cathy Zhou wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've updated the UV (Nemo unification and vanity naming) design >> document and the 20q document based on the recent change of the Nemo >> unification design. Please have a look and give me your comments. >> >> The design document is in >> >> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/clearview/uv_design_v1.4_draft.pdf >> >> and all the changes are highlighted in red. >> >> The 20 questions document is in >> >> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/clearview/uv_20q.txt >> >> and all the changes are marked with the change bar on the right. >> >> Thanks >> - Cathy >> _______________________________________________ >> clearview-discuss mailing list >> clearview-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/listinfo/clearview-discuss >
