RFC: use PG_ComputerSystem instead of Linux_ComputerSystem

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Fri Oct 4 15:49:45 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/04/2013 04:05 AM, Jan Safranek wrote:
> So far we've used Linux_ComputerSystem as our CIM_ComputerSystem
> we associate our instances to.
> 
> Since our primary CIMOM is Pegasus, we could get rid of our
> dependency on SBLIM's base providers and use PG_ComputerSystem
> instead. The CIM_ComputerSystem would still be configurable in 
> /etc/openlmi/openlmi.conf, our providers would still be usable
> with SFCB. This change is just about the default.
> 
> Benefits: - one less dependency (sblim-cpmi-base.rpm)
> 
> Negatives: - we must rewrite our providers to default to
> PG_ComputerSystem (it's probably just one find+replace sed) -
> PG_ComputerSystem looks weird, EnumInstances returns 
> CreationClassName=PG_ComputerSystem, while EnumInstanceNames
> returns CreationClassName=CIM_ComputerSystem. I'll investigate it.
> 
> 


sblim's license has always been a bit of a sticking point. We have
LGPL code depending on EPL code, which is currently categorized as "We
won't be sued", rather than "We're sure this is okay".

So for that piece of mind alone, I'm in favor of this change.
Additionally, it will cement our stance that Pegasus is the official
CIMOM.


Do I understand correctly that this will be effectively an
internal-only change (from the perspective of people consuming only
OpenLMI interfaces)? i.e. tests written against openlmi-storage or
openlmi-account wouldn't need to be updated?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJO45kACgkQeiVVYja6o6P2DQCfZD1Ypa1MLmpXaL4KlnWgj8iC
QFsAnj0iN9laO8Ij2pR36HEvpkbhcW2M
=A0t9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the openlmi-devel mailing list