On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:59:01AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 15.09.2014 um 03:31 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > On Sat, 09/13 19:04, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > I remember at the time of introducing node-name, it was in a separate > > namespace, but now it's not. Then why should the user care *whether* a name > > is > > "device" or "node-name"? > > When you reconfigure the graph (e.g. by taking a live snapshot), the BB > name always stays at the root (i.e. points to the new BDS), whereas the > node-name always stays at the same node (which was at the root, but > isn't any more), that's probably important for the user. Maybe a bit > like branches and tags in git. > > So yes, they are somewhat different, but in the end they all resolve to > a BDS and it makes sense to allow accessing them in a uniform way (just > like 'git show <tag-name>' works the same as 'git show <branch-name>'). > > Which leads me to this conclusion: One mandatory string argument per > command is enough, and also results in a cleaner interface than having > two optional arguments that aren't truly optional because you need to > specify the one xor the other.
I have slightly different taste - preferring to keep things explicit
instead of implicit - but I don't think the choice matters a great deal.
After all, we need to keep existing commands working (and Markus has
enumerated the combinations) so we cannot do anything radical.
If we use a single argument for new commands, it should be named
appropriately ("blockref"?) to indicate that it is not limited to just
BB or just BDS.
Stefan
pgpK_FFafqnst.pgp
Description: PGP signature
