On 27/05/11 02:31, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:13:21AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
My thought process here was that conflicting devices are probably less common than non-conflicting devices. At least, it seems like that'd be the default assumption of someone writing a UCM file. So, if we list ConflictingDevice(s), then that would often map to an empty list, and you could eliminate the section. If we had to list all compatible devices, by default you'd have to list every device in the UCM verb in almost all cases. That seems like more work.
Plus, adding an optional ConflictingDevice list maintains backwards Compatibility with any existing UCM files, whereas adding a mandatory SupportedDevice list doesn't.
I tend to agree with this - the usual case is that you can have as many devices as you like running, the reason for restricting things is more normally usefulness rather than physical possibility.
I wonder if allowing all lists of devices to be either inclusive SupportedDevice or exclusive ConflictingDevice makes sense, with the default being ConflictingDevice being empty, and SupportedDevice being the entire set of devices? Seems more complex, but probably still workable.
That makes sense too - if either directive is used we require an explicit list, otherwise we assume everything is compatible.
Ok, sounds fine to me too. I just wanted to make sure we had explored both options here.
Thanks
Liam