[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 0 of 9] Reorganized association provider registration

[Kaitlin Rupert]

Dan Smith wrote:
> HE> Yes, for Pegasus, but not for sfcb - sfcb calls the association
> HE> provider only once, with the client's assocClass
> HE> (e.g. CIM_SystemDevice), while Pegasus manipulates assocClass to
> HE> fit the subclass' association name (Xen_SystemDevice and
> HE> KVM_SystemDevice) and calls the provider for each subclass.
>
> Ah, okay.  Hmm, that's unfortunate that they behave so differently.
>
> So, if you resolve the association with an assocClass of CIM_Foo on
> sfcb, the provider handler actually sees CIM_Foo as the assocClass,
> per my testing just now.  So we need to make sure that we don't use
> the assocClass (or resultClass) as the target of a
> connect_by_classname().  Might be obvious, but I just wanted to make
> it explicit.
>
>   
Oh, both of these points are interesting - I didn't realize sfcb behaves 
differently (I've never used it).  Thanks for bringing up this issue 
Heidi =)

-- 
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
karupert at us.ibm.com