On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:18:27 -0500, James Cammarata <jimi(a)sngx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:07:58 -0400, Michael DeHaan
<mdehaan(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Actually, the way I'm thinking of it now would be to have a second
system
>> object (sub-systems?), which would store your management info, and then
>> link your main system to that. This would be a 1 to 1 relationship,
>> that way if you rebuilt a system onto a blade (as noted below, this is
a
>> gotcha), you just reassign the sub-system object to something
else that
>> needs management, put it in reserve, or just delete it.
>>
>
> Again, I don't know what we're going to do with the linkage constructs
> here. If it's simply managing DHCP/DNS, I don't think we need it. If
> we start to do more about OOB management, yes, but I'd
subscribe to
> YAGNI [1].
>
> [1] --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Ain%27t_Gonna_Need_It
>
Moot point, you guys came full circle on my idea :)
I'm happy with using the interfaces objects with special names, and
modifying koan/snippets to ignore them. It's the easiest solution to
this,
and the most flexible.
Or using a new option to specify that the interface should be ignored,
though then you may have to add some other way to determine what kind of
management interface it is.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.