On 2013年12月10日 23:16, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:25:07 +0100
Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote:
My objection to your approach is strong because Benoît already sent an
alternative which I believe is less worse because with it, arguments
actually mean what their names tell instead of having additional bools
for "oh, and I said A, but I didn't mean it, I really want B".
Current proposal:
{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'*device': 'str',
'*node-name': 'str', 'password': 'str'} }
I vote for this.
When I look at it, I ask myself:
- What happens when device=NULL?
- What happens when node-name=NULL?
- What happens when device=NULL and node-name=NULL?
- What happens when device != NULL and node-node != NULL?
- What happens when device != NULL but node-node=NULL?
- What happens when device=NULL but node-node != NULL?
My proposal:
{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'device': 'str',
'*device-is-node': 'bool', 'password':
'str'} }
- What happens when device-is-node=NULL?
- What happens when device-is-node != NULL?
I think our starting point is that device names and node names are
separate name spaces. For this reason we should avoid connecting them by
reusing one field. From a user's view, "device-is-node", or anything
meaning this, just doesn't sound interesting, because we also told them
"device-is-not-node".
Fam
