On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:43 -0500, Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: > On (01/27/09 15:33), Sebastien Roy wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand: if you were doing "delete -t", then you would > > > simply not remember the action in your persistent store, right? > > > Similarly for modify? > > > > That is essentially what is being objected to; the implementation of > > temporary operations that have no effect on the persistent repository. > > > > The idea being proposed is that every operation results in modification > > of the persistent repository, but that the persistent repository that > > was modified is reverted to a previous known state. > > > > but if you want to create an "undo" for "delete -t" then > it's essentially all the information that has been built > into the persistent repository up until the "delete -t".
But that is not the same as "not remembering the action". That is remembering the previous state of the repository. > so if we mandate that every operation must modify the peristent > repository and also track the corresponding undo_action > in a journal, then the "undo" for a create is to just move > the information from the persistent repository to the journal, > right? I don't think we're speaking the same language. The "undo" for any operation would have to take something from some hypothetical journal (no-one has specified whether this journal is the repository data itself or a series of commands that operates on the repository) and apply it to the repository. Not the other way around. -Seb
