On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:04:19PM -0700, David Bustos wrote: > Quoth Stephen Hahn on Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:58:49PM -0700: > > * David Bustos <David.Bustos at sun.com> [2006-04-27 11:45]: > > > Hmm, I wonder if we should also allow svcprop with no operands, which > > > would automatically use scf_myname() to determine the current service. > > > > Requires all processes to provide sanitized environments to their > > descendants or scf_myname() to be a bit more contract aware... but > > interesting. > > I don't think that's a requirement; we can just say "Only guaranteed > inside a method process. Will work in child processes as long as the > environment is not abused."
If we're talking about the difference between working and getting a usage message, I think we'll need a much stronger definition of the context in which the command works. Even then, I'm not sure I like the idea of a normal-looking command whose behavior could change based on "invisible" inputs. I'd be much more at ease if this behavior was turned on with an option. Another side effect of this would be that methods couldn't be run directly, i.e. outside of SMF. This normally isn't -- and shouldn't be -- a problem, but it does make debugging harder. Dave
