Sarah Jelinek wrote: > Hi Dave and Jack, > >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'd view it as an important requirement that we be able to perform >>>> full semantic verification on the server. Why is this regarded as >>>> optional? >>> It's not that it's optional on the server, it's that the server >>> cannot provide the full client context to do full validation. Of >>> course we want to do as much validation as we can on both the server >>> and the client. >>> >> >> I would expect that a user could supply whatever context we desire to >> use, either synthetically or via importation of some client context >> that was generated from a real client. From the point of view of the >> validator, the client is just a bunch of parameters, which can also be >> supplied via other avenues. Requiring real, live clients in order to >> validate thus seems unnecessary. > > I don't think in all validation scenarios we require real, live clients. > But, we have to know that some validation is not possible if we don't > have the context for which we are doing the validation. The issue with > some of the semantic validation, specific to the client, is that beyond > simple 'syntax' checking or format checking of something like a target > device specification, without a live client or a set of client data that > provides this information, it is hard to validate the schema. So, are > you proposing we provide for 'importing' the client data if the user so > desires so we can do more contextual validation when setting up a > service? I am not sure why we would want to do that actually. > > Seems to me a service is independent of the client. Clients discover > services, and one service will be used to produce an installed system, > but the manifests that are provided in that service may apply to many > clients. Providing this contextual semantic validation as a user is > setting up a service seems to break what our model is. As you note, we > would have to have some data regarding the client to do this type of > validation, which implies that the user setting up the service would > have to know which clients the service applied to, if they wanted to > make use of it. > > During specific client setup, that is installadm create-client, we could > do this. >
Apparently there's some confusion. I wasn't suggesting that this be done specifically at the time a manifest is installed into the service, but as a manifest development tool used outside that process. It's fairly unlikely that you'd have access to a client against which to validate even in the create-client case. Dave
