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 :)