Danek Duvall wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 02:12:18PM -0500, Norm Jacobs wrote:
>
>
>> Danek Duvall wrote:
>>
>>> Okay. Isn't it strange, then, that you're assigning the Printer
>>> Management profile to the SMF service instances when those instances
>>> could be discovering things other than Printers?
>>>
>> Control of network attached device discovery requires the
>>
>> solaris.smf.manage.discovery.snmp
>> solaris.smf.value.discovery.snmp
>>
>> authorizations.
>>
>> I added them to the "Printer Management" profile so that someone that
>> already has the ability to manage printing could also manage the discovery
>> of network attached printers.
>>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>>> Would "Device Management" be more appropriate? Or would it be
>>> preferable to restructure the service so that the device types are the
>>> instance names, and the discovery protocols are properties on those
>>> instances? (Or something like that.)
>>>
>> The HAL addon, hald-addon-network-discovery, doesn't currently discovery
>> anything other than printers and we don't have plans to extend it to look
>> for anything else.
>>
>
> Is that "we" the printing folks or the more general set of people working
> on HAL? I don't think I'd expect the printing folks to have any plans like
> that. :)
>
The printing group, though I don't know of anyone else that is looking
to do anything else with it, but Artem would have a better idea.
>
>> I can envision a time when we might want to update it to recognize more
>> device types. If we were to break this down to device-type and method, I
>> would change the service name and authorization as follows:
>>
>> svc:/network/device-discovery/printers:snmp
>> solaris.smf.{manage|value}.discovery.printers.snmp
>>
>
> Okay. My only question here, then, is whether the migration from the
> proposed FMRI and authorization strings to these potential future ones is
> painless. Can both FMRIs exist on a system at the same time? I can't
> think of too many network devices at the moment -- only scanners come to
> mind (would storage fall in this category?) -- so maybe it's okay not to
> prepare for them immediately.
>
Changing the proposal to use the service name, authorizations, and D-BUS
method naming that I sent in my last email is easier to do now than some
time in the future even though there are no plans (by the printing group
or anyone else that I know of) to support other device types. The four
(probably more common) device types that immediately come to mind for me
are printers, scanners, fax machines, and storage. The underlaying
printer support is in Solaris, so there is a more immediate need to
discover them. Scanner and Fax device support is currently lacking,
particularly the network attached variety. I expect that the storage
support depends on the type of network attached storage.
-Norm
