David Bustos writes: > SMF users and developers, > > What would you think about something like this: > > $ svcadm enable nfs/server > Error: svc:/network/nfs/server:default is locked. > Use share(1M) to administer this service.
Ouch. I think your implementation details are showing. In general, I think the melange of internal system implementation artifacts and external administrative interfaces implied by this sort of change represents a problem for SMF. It's not clear to me what the intended architectural direction might be. More deeply, it seems to me that there are two forces that are in conflict here. On one side, we want to have task-specific tools to make administration simpler and more coherent than can be accomplished with svccfg. On the other side, those tools have underlying dependencies on bits that we have no choice but to expose via SMF and thus encourage use from outside the task-specific framework. The big problem I see with that (and I had a hallway discussion with the recently-returned meem yesterday) is with profiles. How is it that a profile can be constructed and maintained if the contents actually represent references to internal service implementation details? -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
