G'Day,
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:23:35PM -0600, Spencer Shepler wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Adam Leventhal wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 03:20:02PM -0600, Spencer Shepler wrote:
[...]
> >> nfsv4:::compound-proc-start
> >> nfsv4:::compound-proc-done
> >> nfsv4:::compound-proc-cb-start
> >> nfsv4:::compound-proc-cb-done
> >>
> >> and to be complete
> >>
> >> nfsv4:::null-proc-start
> >> nfsv4:::null-proc-done
> >
> > Why is that better? Can you explain a bit? It still seems as though
> > you're
> > still losing the symmetry between the compound operations and
> > callbacks, but
> > perhaps that's intentional.
>
> "proc" => procedure
Yes, "proc" sounds too much like process; however "procedure" sounds like
something new I didn't know about in NFSv4.
> and that is what NULL and COMPOUND are. They are procedures.
> The "operations" are NFSv4 inventions and not part of the
> RPC/XDR nomenclature.
While I'm sure that's true, from what I've read about NFSv4 the terms
"compound" and "operation" are familiar, and the term "procedure" isn't.
eg,
http://www.nasconf.com/pres04/spencer.pdf
Sorry, I'm not picking your own presentation to make a point, rather it
was the first docs I found when googling. :-)
Anyhow, that's just my opinion as an end-user.
cheers,
Brendan
--
Brendan
[CA, USA]
_______________________________________________
dtrace-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
