From: Spencer Shepler (shepler@eng.sun.com)
Date: 06/21/02-02:26:48 PM Z
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:26:48 -0500 From: Spencer Shepler <shepler@eng.sun.com> Subject: Re: Issue 86 -- Now or never Message-ID: <20020621192648.GK100481@sheplerathome.eng.sun.com> On Fri, Noveck, Dave wrote: > I've been looking at the remaining issues and trying to focus > on those that might involve an incompatible change to the > .x file. The window for those is rapidly closing, if it is > still open at all. > > My opinion is that that window shuts and locks at the August > bakeoff, so that if we need to do something that needs to > change the protocol, we should do it now. > > Now to issue 86. The problem is that callbacks do not identiry > the server. They contains stateid's and filehandles but none > of those are under the client's control. Servers assign them and > you can't assume they are different on different servers. > > The client can deal with this by using distinctive callback > information for each server that it is talking to: either a > different program number or port or combination of those two. > Since the client can deal with this, the existng structure can > be categorized as an annoyance, but I feel it is a big annoyance. > What do the client implementers feel about this? Should we > just fix this by having the client present a 32-bit quantity > in the SETCLIENTID and have that value be passed by the server > in the CB_COMPOUND4ARGS? That minor change would make the > problem go away. Dave, We have been able to manage the issue as you suggest by using various program numbers in the transient range to demultiplex the callback RPCs. I am not opposed to making the suggested change; we would just use the program numbers we are using today as the identifier. Anyone else have a strong opinion? -- Spencer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:49:53 AM Z CST