Hey Clay, Thanks for the feedback, my thoughts inline.
* Clay Baenziger (clayb at sun.com) wrote: > Hi Glenn, > I'm all for the simple approach. I think the power of the DC is for a > user to twiddle the bits on and off and extend only if necessary and > skilled enough. > If you have a finalizer which does the checksums then someone wanting > to > extend this functionality can always easily slurp-up and modify that > finalizer script. Easier is certainly better! And why can't they also slurp up and modify the existing finalizer scripts that contain the new checksum functionality? > Though I agree with the simplicity of Karen's desire to have the > create_iso and create_usb steps include the hash generation, having it > all in one place (a single finalizer script) makes a modification by > skilled users easier without really any added complexity for a novice. I don't know that I see your argument here. Having a distinct finalizer script that just computes hashes vs computing hashes inside the finalizer scripts that actually create the images you want hashes for doesn't seem to be any different to me in terms of ease of modification. What exactly is easier about modifying a finalizer script that only computes hashes? By including the checksum generation in the existing image type finalizer scripts (by image type I'm referring to the create_iso and create_usb scripts which are the only two types of images DC can construct at the moment that you'd want checksums for) I'm linking image hash generation with the actual image construction which just seems natural and logical to me. Moving the hash generation out into a finalizer script of it's own buys us the ability to pause and resume around that script but I don't find that to be of any significant value considering how simple of an operation generating the image hashes are. It isn't a long-lived complex process so I don't know that there's any 'visibility' gains achieved by being able to stop construction around generating the hashes. > Lastly, so the hashes will be in files, how about the DC log? They certainly could be in the log as well I suppose, butto what end? I look at the log as a diagnostic reference, I don't think the hashes are diagnostically relevant (though I will log if a hash can't be generated when it was requested). -- Glenn
