On 19/10/12 00:09, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
> Okay, great! I was very confused to think that querying and changing
> leases would be a long expensive process. That's the whole *point* of
> leasedb is to make that fast and reliable. Duh.
>
> I agree that the protocol you sketched out in your ema
Okay, great! I was very confused to think that querying and changing
leases would be a long expensive process. That's the whole *point* of
leasedb is to make that fast and reliable. Duh.
I agree that the protocol you sketched out in your email would work,
including that the client can wait for con
On 18/10/12 20:48, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:29 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood
> wrote:
>>
>>> The only difference between this and the current scheme is that the
>>> storage server will never do that on its own — it only does it when
>>> you tell it that it is okay to do it
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:29 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood
wrote:
>
>> The only difference between this and the current scheme is that the
>> storage server will never do that on its own — it only does it when
>> you tell it that it is okay to do it.
>
> Okay, so I think this means that lease expiry --
