On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11 Feb 2011, at 03:53, "Matt W. Benjamin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > yes. at this point, an rpc-l primitive and corresponding rxgen support seem > like something we would need to enable manageable and consistent elaboration > of different union types, if I at all understand the issues. I'm happy to > make xcb conformant with this, for example. I am not interested in seeing > this wheel invented several times. > > Coming at this from a slightly different angle, I think we have an immediate > need for a new address primitive. We can create, and implement, one > relatively easily. I don't see doing so as reinventing the wheel. > Separately, I agree that we need a new method of encoding unions on the > wire. However, I think this is going to require more standardisation and > implementation work. I'm definitely interested in seeing that work done, but > I don't think we should delay moving forward with addresses on waiting for > that to happen.
I agree with that summary, and had went to bed with the same idea in my craw. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
