Heidi Eckhart wrote:
Dan Smith wrote:
HE> # HG changeset patch HE> # User Heidi Eckhart <heidieck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> HE> # Date 1195819371 -3600 HE> # Node ID db20c6206fb6decb484035bec81d7c7f2be75eae HE> # Parent bf54de6af2e210bef57d74cf12e4872f6ba2da4f HE> [RFC] Enhance handling of association's references
HE> The source and target classnames of std_assoc are now lists, HE> containing all supported classnames. This approach frees the HE> provider from listing all possible combinations as instances of HE> std_assoc.
I'm tentatively okay with this approach. We need to make a decision and go with it so that we can freeze (at least to some extent) the libcmpiutil API and make an official code release. If this approach is ok for all, then I can cook up a patch for each association.
I'm also on the tentatively okay side. It looks sound, and should work, but I always get a little tentative when we deal with the "who handles what" type questions, as I'm a bit over my head on those most of the time. I'd say that if nobody sees anything that looks outright wrong we should go with it, as you seem to have a better understanding of how that sort of thing should go than we do. -- -Jay