Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > There are a number of dimensions to think about here. Obviously a set > operation brings up the question of which properties are read/write vs > read-only; in fact, there may be some properties which are writable only > by root and others which can be written by any user. > > Per-user (presumably, per-pag) properties are an interesting idea, but > unless we have an immediate need, I think it might be better to defer it > for now. If necessary, we can always define a new interface for per-user > properties at some point in the future.
I am having a small heart attack reading the above text. Per-user or per-pag properties have the potential to raise significant help desk support issues. While the concept is quite powerful it can very easily be used to give user's rope to hang themselves. The fs commands provide a number of get/set operations. The set operations affect the global behavior of the cache manager and are therefore restricted to execution by 'root' on UNIX or the "AFS Administrator" on Windows. If we were to provide per-user/pag properties we would very quickly be asked to apply the functionality to the sysnames list, crypt, server preferences, storebehind, and on Windows UseDNS, HideDotFiles, timeout values, locking options, character set, and those are just the ones that come to mind at the moment. while the power of such flexibility is tempting, is the added complexity and help desk costs really worth the benefit? please shoot this idea dead now. Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
