Re: minor versions -> requirement?

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

From: Mike Eisler (mre@eng.sun.com)
Date: 09/24/98-05:21:10 PM Z 

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Eisler <mre@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: minor versions -> requirement?
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMCSD.2.0.4.906675670.19682.mre@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?

I would hate to have to update the program's version field in the RPC
header each time a new extended attribute was added.

> Should it stay in the requirements document?

It would appear that adding procedures to the same "major" version
is a contentitous requirement, but adding an extended attribute within
same major version seems to me to be a requirement. And that requires
some kind of versioning scheme (whether it be a minor version in the
protocol, or breaking the protocol into different program#s, or some other
yet to be suggested scheme.

	-mre

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