minor versions -> requirement?

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Spencer Shepler (shepler@eng.sun.com)
Date: 09/24/98-04:58:36 PM Z 

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:58:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Spencer Shepler <shepler@eng.sun.com>
Subject: minor versions -> requirement?
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.906674316.16082.shepler@eng.sun.com>


Okay.  Lance and Peter have said they prefer the use of the standard RPC
versioning mechanism to provide protocol modifications.

Are there other comments on this issue?

Should it stay in the requirements document?

I will take the opportunity to point out that the working group charter
contains:

----
o Designed for protocol extensions. 

The protocol will be designed to accept standard extensions that do not
compromise backward compatibility.  ----

When the working group charter is revisited (at the delivery of the
requirements document), should we ask that this item be removed?

Are there other perceptions of what minor versioning is and what
it will eventually deliver that might help clarify the requirement?

Spencer

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:46:19 AM Z CST