> With this particular issue, again, there are two irreconcilable desired > behaviors: > > - when accessing a legacy/misbehaving fileserver, yield an error after > N seconds of no progress > > - when accessing a legacy/misbehaving fileserver, hang forever in the > face of no progress
I don't think anyone wants this. > I believe/assume what is being considered "right" is the latter option. ? > But to tell me that it is the universal "right" option is arrogant and > inconsiderate of the differences in different site circumstances. > > And note that yes, I am aware of the cache consistency problems with the > former approach. I think some medium approach is required. Not merely desirable, but necessary. 1.6.1pre2 includes one, but not necessarily the desired one. > And, although sometimes it seems like this idea is > unfathomable to some people in the community, some people _do_ exist > that do not place cache consistency at their highest priority. The problem there, to me, is only when those people wish to participate in the global AFS namespace, which is a second issue here, the "play nice or go home" issue. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
