I wasn't meaning this alternative cache implementation, I was meaning in
general. I.e. I'd like to be able to plug in whatever backend cache is
appropriate or ideal. For example, I'd like to be able to try the winnt
style single cache file on unix boxes.
-- Nathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman
To: Neulinger, Nathan
Cc: 'Derek Atkins '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Sent: 7/7/01 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] PATCH: break up cache into reasonable subdirs
for large cache sizes
>>>>> "Neulinger," == Neulinger, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Neulinger,> If this were made optional (i.e. add a param to afsd),
Neulinger,> I would have no objection to it being added
Neulinger,> in. Personally, I'd like to see the cache
Neulinger,> implementation be much more modular - to allow
Neulinger,> plugging in different back-end storage mechanisms in
Neulinger,> different cases.
Why should it be modular? How does it not strictly improve the
current situation?
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
