On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:37:52AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/14/2016 09:31 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > Mmmm ... maybe. I'm not actually quite sure what the purpose of
> > sending the canonical name is, but if there is a purpose may be
> > we should set a 'canonical' flag on that one.
>
> That argues that either we add a canonical field to NBD_INFO_NAME, or we
> have two separate types: NBD_INFO_CANONICAL_NAME (at most once), and
> NBD_INFO_ALTERNATE_NAME (as many as wanted). I don't have any strong
> preferences about the need or desire to expose more than one name;
> anyone else want to chime in on whether I'm over-engineering things for
> current needs?
I think that's a bit overengineering, yes -- see my other mail.
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
Nbd-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
