Re: cimmof vs cimmofl

There are a couple of reasons for cimmofl the 
direct to repository compiler rather than cimmof 
the mof compiler that goes through the cimserver 
client interface and requires a running 
server.  Note, however, that they are both the 
same compiler at heart and the only difference is 
the destination for the compiled objects.

1. Need a way to put some basic things into the 
repository when starting. Thus, loading 
qualifiers and the core classes is a straight 
forward task and does not require any interaction 
with the server itself, just the repository
2. It is logical to load a basic repository 
directly in the case of creating a new repository.

Besides, early in the project we did not have 
enough of a running server that we could have 
used cimmofl and we needed a reposiitory to test 
the server components as they were built.

However, using cimmofl bypasses the providers and 
directly installs anything defined into the repository.

Since creating instances often goes through 
providers even before they are installed into the 
repository and providers may provide extra 
quality checks and may even do more than just 
creating instances in the repository (ex. 
creating filters, etc. for indications) we long 
ago adopted the policy that except for repository 
startup, users should go through cimmof.  Further 
as we move into the future with a stable platform 
more and more users will want everything to be 
security filtered and only cimmof passes through the security components.

Thus, except for basic repository creation we 
strongly encourage users to use only 
cimmof.  Note that once a basic repository was 
created one could seriously consider disabling cimmofl.

Calling cimmofl deprecated was probably too heavy 
handed but we were looking for ways to discourage 
people from using cimmofl except for the limited 
startup and that was what we adopted early in the project.

We may look at rewording or reorganizing things a 
bit in the future to make some of these differences clearer to the user.

Karl
Thanks for your message at 03:15 PM 8/24/2012. Your message was:
>My understanding is, for the new installation 
>and without CIM server start running, using cimmofl to construct the
>repository. cimmof is for compiling the cim 
>classes with the CIM server running (of course it already has basic repository
>constructed.
>
>I just what to know if my understanding is correct.
>
>=============================================
>   Quan Wang
>   HMC Development,      IBM
>=============================================
>
>
>
>From:        Devchandra L Meetei <[email protected]>
>To:        Kirk Augustin <[email protected]>
>Cc:        "Hwang, Johnny" 
><[email protected]>, 
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Date:        08/24/2012 02:39 PM
>Subject:        Re: cimmof vs cimmofl
>
>
>
>
>I agree with Martin.
>though cimmofl is deprecated, it is used in make 
>repository because, cimom need some of the 
>classes to be present in repo to start to work properly.
>
>Regards
>--Dev
>
>
>On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Kirk Augustin 
><<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
>It has been awhile, but I believe the idea was 
>the cimmofl is better if you are starting from 
>scratch or have deleted the entire repository.
>But cimmof is what you should use if you are 
>simply adding to or modifying the existing repository.
>
>
>Kirk Augustin
>11821 NW McNamee Rd
>Portland, OR 97231
>
>HM: 503-289-4356
>
>----------
>From: "Hwang, Johnny" 
><<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
>To: 
>"<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]" 
><<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
>Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:52 AM
>Subject: cimmof vs cimmofl
>
>I’m using Pegasus 2.11.1 and Pegasus 2.10.0 .
>
>I notice in the pegasus/mak/configschema.mak file that
>
>CIMMOFCLI = $(PEGASUS_HOME)/bin/cimmofl
>
>However, cimmofl displays the message
>
>Warning: Use of cimmofl can corrupt the CIM Server Repository.
>          cimmofl should only be used under very controlled situations.
>          cimmof is the recommended OpenPegasus MOF compiler.
>
>
>Should cimmofl be changed to cimmof instead? Is 
>there any reason why Pegasus is still using 
>cimmofl during its make repository phase?
>
>Also, on Windows, I’m testing a new 
>environment setup: Visual Studio 2010 and 2008 
>installed on the same machine. I compile with 
>the VS 2008 version of vcbat. Executing the 
>newly-compiled cimmofl then results in a buffer 
>overflow. I see the same behavior with 2005 and 
>2008 installed, and using the VS 2005 version of 
>vcbat. When there was only one version of Visual 
>Studio installed, I do not have any problems.
>
>If you need more information, please let me know 
>and I will flesh out the context more.
>
>Thank you all, and hope this helps,
>
>Johnny Hwang
>Office: 408.822.3231
>Mobile: 510.304.7404
>
>
>

Karl Schopmeyer                   Inova Development Inc.
305 Spring Creek Village, Suite 475 -  Dallas TX, 75248 USA
EMAIL: [email protected]       FAX: 1-972-239-0326
Phone 1-972-814-5581
Skype: kschopmeyer         Skype Phone: (214) 556-5971