[refpolicy] [PATCH] Introduce init_manage_service_template interface

[cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)]

On 5/18/2015 10:11 AM, Jason Zaman wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 03:27:48PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>>    What about "operate"?
> 
> or direct, govern, handle. I think operate is a bit better tho since
> operator is one of the standard unix accounts.
> 
> Chris, do you want me to re-do the patch with any of them in particular
> or do you want to search and replace on your end?

I was thinking about verbs for these interfaces in general, and obvious
ones are:

* start
* stop
* <start and stop: operate, direct, govern, handle?>

Then it occurred to me, why not do something like startstop like we do
sendrecv?  It's ugly, but clearly indicates what is happening.


>>    On May 18, 2015 3:22 PM, "Jason Zaman" <[1]jason@perfinion.com> wrote:
>>
>>      On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:57:53AM -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito
>>      wrote:
>>      > On 5/14/2015 6:28 PM, Jason Zaman wrote:
>>      > > This is to be used where a role needs to start and stop a
>>      service. It
>>      > > centralizes all the rules for redhat < 6 sysvinit that were used
>>      in the
>>      > > _admin interfaces. The rules for other inits will be added
>>      later.
>>      >
>>      > I'm ok with this set, though I'm trying to decide if this is the
>>      right
>>      > name for this template.?  I'm not sure if we should overload
>>      "manage"
>>      > since it already is create/read/write/delete on files, dirs, etc.
>>      I would be quite willing to change the name if there is a better
>>      one. I
>>      agree "manage" is overloaded. Although "start" doesnt work either
>>      since
>>      the template would be for stopping / status / etc as well.
>>      Is there any other verb that is used to in this context we can use
>>      instead?
>>      -- Jason


-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
www.tresys.com | oss.tresys.com