Jay Gagnon wrote:
--- a/doc/libvirt-cim.html Thu Dec 06 11:06:38 2007 +0100 +++ b/doc/libvirt-cim.html Thu Dec 06 11:06:39 2007 +0100 @@ -300,6 +300,11 @@ below:</p> #pragma include ("qualifiers.mof")<br/> #pragma include ("qualifiers_optional.mof")<br/> #pragma include ("Core/CIM_ManagedElement.mof")<br/> +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_ManagedSystemElement.mof")<br/> +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_LogicalElement.mof")<br/> +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_EnabledLogicalElement.mof")<br/> +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_System.mof")<br/> +#pragma include ("System/CIM_ComputerSystem.mof")<br/> #pragma include ("Interop/CIM_RegisteredProfile.mof")<br/> #pragma include ("Interop/CIM_RegisteredSubProfile.mof")<br/> #pragma include ("Core/CIM_Dependency.mof")<br/>
Looks syntactically sound. I don't recognize a couple of those classes as dual-namespace ones, but I'm not going to second guess our CIM Compliance Officer on that. :) +1
For my own curiosity - I'm not sure why CIM_EnabledLogicalElement.mof and CIM_Dependency.mof need to be added. I understand the need for the others though. =) -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center karupert@us.ibm.com