Kaitlin Rupert wrote:

Dan Smith wrote:

...

KR> Oops, yes. I meant the pool_to_sys() side. =)

Well, that is less of a problem I'd say. We don't really have the same issue of checking for a superclass where a subset of the children would be invalid parameters to the association, right? That's the root of the problem with the other direction.

We could certainly look up an instance of the pool they're asking about and check their reference. I'm not sure it really matters as much as something like a GetInstance though, because the answer is always the same, no matter what pool they ask about. If someone deleted a pool between when they got a reference and when they asked about the host system for that pool, then we'd fail the association even though we already knew the answer and the answer is valid.

Depends on your interpretation of CIM principles I suppose :)

KR> Is there a defined CIM way for handling properties? I mostly KR> asked because I don't know much about them.

I'm not sure what the policy is for property filtering and if keys can't be filtered. Something to revisit when we actually implement support for such, I'd say :)

Well said - good points. =) -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center karupert@us.ibm.com