> No, I think it's a good idea. I was merely communicating the fact that > svccfg was written to be the bare-bones low-level interface to the > repository. Unfortunately, in lieu of a higher-level interface, it has > become the only customizing interface, which is why people find it > deficient.
Understood. > High-level functionality needs to be somewhere. We'd prefer it be in > "Visual Panels" ( http://opensolaris.org/os/project/vpanels ), but that > may be far enough off or so high-level as to call for some high-level > functionality in svccfg itself. I believe such is being contemplated as > part of the aforementioned "Templates" project. Well, why not consider stability a low-level feature? That is, why would it be wrong to have the low-level interfaces grok the notion of stability, and (e.g.) require specific flags to modify unstable properties? This has the side effect of forcing all developers to confront and address the notion of stability when writing their software. -- meem
