On Mar 12, 2006, at 8:44 AM, Peter.Memishian at Sun.COM wrote: > I worry a bit about the multiple-property case -- e.g.: > > $ dladm show-prop power-mode,radio ath0 > > ... feels more comfortable to me *with* the leading "-p": > > $ dladm show-prop -p power-mode,radio ath0 > > However, I do agree with your overall point. Does anyone else have > any > strong opinions on this topic? If so, please speak up :-)
I think that we should be consistent with the current dladm(1M) interface and keep one operand and separate options. Further, I'm still uneasy about the object of the *-prop subcommands being links. This is not consistent with the existing dladm(1M) usage, where verb and type of object are concatenated to form the various subcommand names. With the proposed *-prop options, this would imply that the objects are properties are the objects, when the objects are really the links. To be consistent with the current dladm(1M) model, the property subcommands should be made specific to the type of objects they correspond to, e.g. setprop-link, getprop-link, showprop-link. This would be also compliant with the latest CLIP guidelines. Nicolas. -- Nicolas Droux, Solaris Networking nicolas.droux at sun.com, http://blogs.sun.com/droux
