Kacheong Poon wrote: > 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.
of course; that's why I said "presumably" and (in line with the "we already have ..." argument). not having ilbadm do everything has implications on code location (as you have pointed out in our discussions). Michael -- Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
