"Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. And, speaking as an AFS site, I don't want this. HTTP and FTP are much
> more suitable protocols, and since Kerberos authentication will be within HTTP
> before long (I hope), the one remaining reason for using AFS, that of
> authentication and access control, will no longer be relevant.
>
What about replication of data, load balancing, and caching? I like the fact
that if one vice server goes down, I'm not completely hosed since there's
most likely another vice server with the same information that I can access
transparently, and probably a copy in my local cache if I've just recently
fetched it.
> May I ask why you think this is a good thing? There are not that many sites
> using AFS (compared to the number of HTTP servers already out there), and it
> seems daft to put effort into a feature which won't be used a great deal. I'm
> sure that a very high proportion of AFS users have WWW servers, and as they
> all use Kerberos, setting up Kerberised HTTP should be easy.
>
Authentication isn't the only reason for using AFS.
