5 Mar
2008
5 Mar
'08
2:29 p.m.
Dan Smith wrote:
I know that in several places, we assume that a device type is the same as the CIM resource type. Above, you define CIM_RASD_TYPE_foo to CIM_RES_TYPE_foo, presumably to avoid having to touch all the places that use the former. I think to reduce ambiguity and to enforce the fact that these must remain the same, it would be better to just change CIM_RASD_TYPE_foo to CIM_RES_TYPE_foo everywhere.
Thoughts?
I'm definitely supporting this opinion and will update all providers, if the others are fine with using CIM_RES_TYPE_foo in all cases (Device, DevicePool, RASD ...). -- Regards Heidi Eckhart Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center - Open Hypervisor