Re: fs-independent quotas

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:37:23PM -0400, James K. Lowden wrote:
 > >  - The choice of "class" for types-of-ID and "type" for types-of-thing
 > > is somewhat arbitrary. One might argue that it would make more sense
 > > the other way around. I could be persuaded to switch it (or to change
 > > to other terms) but speak up fast. I do think being clear about these
 > > as different kinds of things is a good idea; 
 > 
 > I'm glad you raised this point, because it was my only concern.  You
 > had to clarify these terms in your description.  Why?  Because "type"
 > and "class" are indistinguishable abstract nouns.  I'm of the type who
 > prefers to classify concretely!  

Sure... but naming things is hard, and reforming existing terminology
is sometimes even harder.

 > Two pairs that strike me as more mnemonic:
 > 
 >      id, target
 >      principal, securable

There's already an id column in the table. The "class" is the type of
id, not the id itself. And similarly, the "type" is the type of
target, not the target itself.

Maybe "idtype" and "targettype"?

The same objection applies to principal/securable, unfortunately.

let's keep trying though...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost