Re: cimmof vs cimmofl

Much clear.

Thanks!


=============================================
   Quan Wang
   HMC Development,      IBM Austin
   Phone: 512-286-9146,  T/L 363-9146   Fax: 512-973-4284
=============================================



From:   Karl Schopmeyer <[email protected]>
To:     Quan Wang/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Devchandra L Meetei 
<[email protected]>
Cc:     "Hwang, Johnny" <[email protected]>, Kirk Augustin 
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>
Date:   08/24/2012 03:53 PM
Subject:        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 < [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" < [email protected]>
To: " [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