On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:37:07 -0400, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My comment would be to move the actual tape handling part out of DDR >entirely and let the data storage be handled by something else, eg a >pipe connecting to the input or output of the DDR engine. Then it >wouldn't matter how we were storing the data, and all the positioning >stuff could be out in user space, so DDR wouldn't need to know or care. > >Then we wouldn't need CMSDDR any more. > >-- db I don't see how that removes the need for CMS DDR. If anything it seems to strengthen it because standalone DDR wouldn't have access to whatever is doing the tape handling. I don't think you meant we wouldn't need standalone DDR because that will always be needed as a last resort for when CMS is not available, and therefore it has to be able to read what CMS DDR wrote. This requires the media handling function to be part of standalone DDR, which seems contrary to your comment. Please clarify in case I misunderstood you. Brian Nielsen
