Re: minor versioning revisited

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

From: Brent (brent@eng.sun.com)
Date: 11/05/99-01:59:35 AM Z


Message-ID: <38228E67.83662EB4@eng.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 23:59:35 -0800
From: Brent <brent@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: minor versioning revisited


I like Mike Eisler's rules for minor versioning.

However, I'd prefer not to see the minor version
required in the COMPOUND4args.  I think it's simpler
as an attribute:

	minor_version	The minor version number of the protocol.
			The first version is number zero. 


The client can query the server's minor version anytime
with a GETATTR.  Most likely on the first call (at mount time)
along with lots of other server information.

The client could use a VERIFY operator to abort a compound op
if the server's minor version is too small.  For instance,
if the server was to use a compound op that required version 2
then it could prepend a "VERIFY minor_version 2" (I'm assuming
the server would evaluate this attribute comparison as
an inequality rather than as a strict match on equal).

There's an advantage for client's that use only minor
version 0.  They don't need to query minor_version or
VERIFY it - nor do they need to put the version number
in the COMPOUND4args.

	Brent


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 : 03/04/05-01:47:51 AM Z CST