Forwarding to caiman-discuss. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [caiman-discuss] Code review for the Install on Extended Partitions project Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:32:36 +0100 From: William Schumann <[email protected]> To: Sarah Jelinek <Sarah.Jelinek at Sun.COM> References: <4AD35BBC.4040300 at sun.com> <4AD62BCF.1090607 at sun.com> <4ADD9C5B.2010500 at sun.com> <4ADDEAF7.7010206 at sun.com> <4ADEF235.9040003 at sun.com> <4ADF707F.2080301 at sun.com> <4AE03351.9060809 at sun.com>
Sarah, I've changed my mind on the "partition_is_logical" boolean vs. a separate section "logical_partition" for each logical partition within the "ai_disk_partitioning" section in the extended partition. I think it is simpler to have the boolean in the same format for primary partitions than to have a new section that requires a new beginning and ending tag that must be embedded in a particular place. No additional nesting is needed. Putting "logical_partition" section in the "ai_device_partitioning" for the extended partition may be symbolically more explicit, but is really unnecessary. The boolean is also more easy to explain to a user than a whole new position-dependent section. Anyone else have an opinion on this? If not, I'll stick with the "partition_is_logical" boolean. Thank you, William William Schumann wrote: > Sarah, > > Sarah Jelinek wrote: >> ... >> I like the ai_logical_partition approach as you note above better. It >> seems logical to me and a better user interface. In case the user >> doesn't define a logical partition for the extended partition they >> are creating, would we create 1 logical partition the whole size of >> the extended partition? > No, the user must define a partition size, following the same policy > we agreed upon for primary partitions. The user would specify > 'max_size'. > Should the policy be reconsidered? > William >
