On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Steven Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Matt W. Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Steven, >> >> It seems as if the natural interop scenarios with NFSv4 involve converting >> from a common (e.g., lfs) time representation. What am I missing? > > I don't know that all interactions would be from a common local > filesystem; for example, what if someone wanted to put AFS on top of > NFSv4? > > Also, staying with the main goals of the proposal: i.e., that higher > levels of granularity for time are available and that the additional > information can be useful to various components in AFS, then if other > filesystems already have finer levels of granularity than what is > proposed, then the proposed RFC is already out of date, as a > replacement RFC would need to be done to increase the level of > granularity yet again. > > i.e., we should future proof this proposal by taking the finest level > of granularity in existing filesystems. >
well, in a universe where we have defined extended unions, perhaps a non-fixed-size time, allowing additional precision without requiring it, would be the answer? i still think it's would be preferable to, at this time, discard precision than to bloat every use of time in an RPC. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
