Glenn Lagasse wrote: > 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. >
If the hashing were configurable, the advantage would be to be able to re-run with different hashing without regenerating the images. However, since you don't seem to be implementing configurability of the hashes, then I guess that's moot. Dave
