From: Spencer Shepler (shepler@eng.sun.com)
Date: 06/18/01-02:30:46 PM Z
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:30:46 -0500 From: Spencer Shepler <shepler@eng.sun.com> Subject: Re: Openattr issues/clarifications Message-ID: <20010618143045.A516@dhcp-aus08-229.eng.sun.com> The protocol is written in a way that allows named attributes on all file system objects. On Mon, Khan, Saadia wrote: > Are named attributes only supported for files or can directories > have named attributes too? > > thanks, > Saadia > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer Shepler [mailto:shepler@eng.sun.com] > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 7:09 AM > To: 'nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com' > Subject: Re: Openattr issues/clarifications > > > On Sun, Noveck, Dave wrote: > > > > I think the simplest way of accommodating multiple styles of > > implementation of this feature is to add a boolean parameter to > > OPENATTR. If FALSE, OPENATTR would fail if there were no > > named attributes associated with the file. This would be > > open for interrogate. If TRUE, it would not fail if there > > were not attributes (or no such directroy although that is > > not something that is explicitly visible in the protocol). > > That would open to modify and it would fail on a read-only > > fs. Creation per se of the named attribute directory would > > not be called out as a protocol-visible event but it would > > allow an implementation to avoid superfluous creations when > > only interrogations are required. > > > > This seems like a reasonable protocol modification. > > Anyone else have an opinion? > > Spencer -- - Spencer -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:48:50 AM Z CST