Michael Schuster wrote:
> If we went with "commit" model outlined above, a suitable subcommand
> could be added to ilbadm, which would presumably perform the actual
> update to the persistent config file (in line with the "we already have
> ..." argument). This would have maybe even more severe implications than
> Q3 indicates, as ilbadm would be *writing* persistent config.
I think they are orthogonal. Doing a commit does not
necessarily mean that ilbadm must update the persistent
configuration itself (as the user running the command).
It just means that ilbadm sends a commit command to ilbd
so that ilbd will update the persistent configuration.
--
K. Poon.
kacheong.poon at sun.com
