| 1 |
On 12/01/2015 08:50 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> The "container" keyword, being generic, would have its meaning expanded |
| 3 |
> to cover new container systems as they come along. This means if a |
| 4 |
> service script has the keyword "-container" it will not work under any |
| 5 |
> current or future container systems. On the other hand, adding |
| 6 |
> "container" means it will work under all of them. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If it's similar to how license groups work, then there is room for doing |
| 9 |
things like "-@container docker" which means no containers except |
| 10 |
docker, or "@container -docker" which means all containers except |
| 11 |
docker. Keyword groups can be implemented using a simple expansion |
| 12 |
mechanism, just like license groups. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> The more I think about this, I think fine-grained control rather than |
| 15 |
> just using a single keyword for all containers is the better option. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Keyword groups, as described above, result in a flexible combination of |
| 18 |
both approaches. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Thanks, |
| 21 |
Zac |
Archives