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(a)us.ibm.com