On Wed 02 Jul 2008 at 02:57PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> > The design spec for this feature, as discussed previously on 
> > pkg-discuss, is contained in the issue:
> > 
> > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=856
> 
> I really don't think this design is complete.  It looks to me like
> somebody said, "We need an image title." Then the entire property
> interface was designed around that.
> 
> It seems like we ought to be able to unify the property space to
> encapsulate all of the different image configuration options as
> properties.  Aren't authority, filter, image-policy, and mirroring
> options all properties that are specific to an image?
> 
> This design just adds another set/unset/<name> triplet which is only
> going to get worse as we add more features to the configuration.  If you
> put this back, and I follow up with mirroring, we'll have:
> 
> set-authority
> unset-authority
> authority
> set-mirror
> unset-mirror
> set-property
> unset-property
> property
> 
> This isn't a very usable command-line interface.  As we add options to
> the config, it'll only get worse.

I have concerns here too: this looks to me a bit too bolted-on.
Users might reasonably regard lots of different things about an
image to be a "property" of the image-- it's path, it's preferred
authority, it's list of authorities, etc.  Whereas the proposal
is sort of a way of adding window-dressing to an image.

That is to say, the proposal's claim to the name "property" seems
over-broad given the extremely limited scope of this facility.

Whether the set-, unset- etc command pattern is a good UI paradigm is
perhaps a good discussion for another time.

As a side issue, I really think that we need to expose the cfg cache
object as a first class thing, and stop adding methods to Image which
just pass through.

        -dp

-- 
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to