Hi, The safe union type I'm sure wasn't intended to be afs-specific, except insofar as rx is obviously developed under the umbrella of afs. That isn't a layer, but the point seems to argue for changing the name of the union type.
Matt ----- "Simon Wilkinson" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
