On 10 Mar 2011, at 15:38, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:17:52 +0000
Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
4/ Rewrite the challenge definition in terms of either the proposed
new afs-union structure (which seems to me to break abstraction
layers)
This is what I thought would be done in cases like this. What
abstraction is this breaking? The new type is at the XDR layer, like
all
of the other XDR primitives.
That RX shouldn't have "afs" dependencies. If our intention is that
afs-union be a new, generic, XDR type, then we need to call it
something that doesn't have "afs" in the name.
S.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
