Jamie Nguyen
jamie****@tomoy*****
Sat Jun 4 19:23:57 JST 2011
Toshiharu Harada wrote: > How I wish I can say "yes" to "restart_domain"... Hehe I had a funny feeling that we weren't finished with this discussion yet :-) > But I can't this time. My inner soul tells me that "to restart > something, you need to start it first" and I cannot resist it. > (sorry, Jamie) > > If I have to choose from the above two, my vote is "reset_domain". > Resetting domain makes sense since domain is already there. > To accept "restart_domain", I would like to claim for > "start_domain". Maybe some example definitions could help: reset: 1) to reset a guage or dial or counter to zero 2) to reset a broken bone restart: 1) to restart an engine that is not currently running 2) to restart a computer which is still running (first stop and then start) start: 1) to start an engine that is not currently running I dislike "start_domain" because it implies that something has stopped, when in fact it is more of a transition. In fact, the same applies to "restart_domain". I suppose you could say that we are "resetting" the domain to zero (similar to resetting a counter), where zero means it becomes the top level domain (just like nothing comes before zero), and where top level domains are given their own exception/domain/profile policy. In a sense, when we create a new namespace, we are also resetting exception/domain/profile policy to their original values as well (where original=almost empty). So "reset_domain" actually sounds quite reasonable to me.