Dan Smith wrote:
JF> I guess my question should really be directed at SVPC. Client JF> developers assume they can get resource pool from PoolID. JF> Generally I think the CIM model advocates associations to describe JF> such relationships. But RAP is not clear on this.
Right, PoolID seems like quite a hack to me, and definitely out of place compared to the rest of SVPC. It helps us a little with the template RASDs but we could get by without it.
I don't have a strong feeling about it one way or the other, so I'll let someone who does make the call.
Sorry for the delayed response here.. The use case examples in the SVP show the PoolID set on the RASD instances. However, setting the PoolID attribute appropriately, like you've both mentioned, is basically a re-implementation of the ResourceAllocationFromPool association. It seems like a waste of processing to add it. Jim, you says that client developers assume that this attribute is set. Have you run into any situations where its been needed? -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com