Sangeeta Misra wrote: > On 03/02/09 20:49, michael schuster wrote: >> Kacheong Poon wrote: >>> Michael Schuster wrote: >>>> On 02/25/09 15:46, Michael Schuster wrote: >>>> >>>>> since there's been no other comments, I'll proceed as follows: >>>>> >>>>> - remove the "serverID" keyword again. >>>>> - since the base of the serverID is now the SG name, remove the >>>>> ability to use the hostname as (base) serverID. >>>>> - (this is according to the initial plan) modify commands which >>>>> used to manipulate servers by address to now handle server IDs. >>>> >>>> Would it be better to not only change the commands to accept server >>>> IDs instead of IP addresses, but also change the *keyword* from >>>> "server" to something else, so there's no (well ... less) confusion: >>>> so instead of: >>> >>> >>> Isn't the serverID (base + a number) assigned by the system? >>> And the number part may possibly change when the same server >>> is removed and then added back. Correct? If the above are >>> true, then an admin may not know the "current" serverID and >>> it means that requiring a serverID to be specified can be >>> problematic. >> >> ahem ... the whole notion of the server ID was created to have >> something other than the ip address to manipulate servers with. What >> do you suggested we do? >> >> Michael > Michael, > What do you require the user to specify in server id ( basename, > basename + number). I thought at one point you had decided that the > basename and the number will be asigned by the system, with the basename > being the server group name( and that the mapping of serverid and IP > address would be listed in list-servergreoup command). Have you changed > your mind on that ?
no - I didn't notice that being said or implied. Michael -- Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
