On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:24:33 -0700
Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/06/2013 07:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:15:00 +0100
> > Benoît Canet <ben...@irqsave.net> wrote:
>
> >> -{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'device': 'str', 'password': 'str'}
> >> }
> >> +{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'*device': 'str',
> >> + '*node-name': 'str', 'password':
> >> 'str'} }
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > { 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'device': 'str',
> > '*device-is-node': 'bool',
> > 'password': 'str'} }
>
> That would also work; the naming is a bit more awkward, but then you
> don't have the issue of mutually-exclusive optional arguments where
> exactly one of the two arguments is required.
Yes, and I dislike that very much.
Btw, can anyone remind me why we can't have new commands instead?
> I'm leaning slightly towards the approach that Benoît took, if only for
> the naming aspect (that is, I also thought of the idea of a bool flag,
> but didn't suggest it because I didn't like the implications on the
> naming). But I can live with either approach, if anyone else has a
> strong opinion.
Well, we can pick up any descriptive name 'treat-device-as-a-node',
'device-is-a-graph-node'...
