Nicolas Williams writes: > > > Scripts, profiles, people? > > > > I think we need to dive into the use-case a bit more. I don't think > > that depending on routing makes any sense at all. > > I didn't posit any services that would depend on routing!
OK ... if it's just the profile usage, then I'm ok with that. (We don't seem to have a good or at least common way to express that the FMRI is usable for control but not usable for dependencies. Perhaps that needs to be added somewhere.) > > Indeed. But the users who don't like "routing" would be upset about > > that daemon. > > Well, users have been upset about lots of daemons, e.g. rpcbind(1M) (OK, > probably a bad example, historically). > > Will we not stand up and say "sorry, but that daemon, in the > configuration you need, is safe to have around and, what's more, it's > required." That's one for the project team, I think. I'd completely understand if they said "no." > > > I'm considering the possibility of a service that decides, when its > > > start method runs, whether it will be transient or not. > > > > "ick." > > Well, so, I'd rather have a daemon managing static routes and sitting > there waiting for configuration changes. > > But I can well imagine future services that could benefit from being > able to declare transient-ness at service start time. I'm not sure how deep that principle goes. Does it eventually mean a way for services to say, "the last of my processes is terminating, but that's ok, because the service I offer is still in effect through other means?" Perhaps it's more general than just start-up time. > > I see. I think that's really an implementation detail. > > FMRIs are interfaces, unless in this case the routeadm command is > intended to be the only Committed interface for managing > forwarding/routing state and the FMRIs themselve Project Private, then > I'd expect the FMRIs to be Commited also. > > Maybe that's the answer: the FMRIs in question should be Project Private > because routeadm is the public interface. In that case I don't mind the > split forwarding/routing split at all. I think having routeadm as the committed interface is one of the goals here. -- 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
