29.12.2016 19:04, Alex Bligh wrote: >> On 28 Dec 2016, at 00:18, Wouter Verhelst <w...@uter.be> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:52:54PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> Shouldn't we add some flags to REP_META_CONTEXT, for client to be insure, is >>> returned string a direct context name or some kind of wildcard? Just a flags >>> field, with one flag defined for now: NBD_REP_META_CONTEXT_LEAF and others >>> reserved. >> I think it should be up to the metadata context namespace definition to >> define which syntax represents a direct context name and which >> represents a wildcard (if the latter are supported). >> >> A client which doesn't know what a given metadata context implements >> can't reasonably ask for information from that context anyway (since >> then the client wouldn't know what to do with the returned information), >> so it doesn't help much to add a flag here. > I agree. > > Vladimir: if this isn't clear from the text, please suggest a change. >
I'm ok with Wouter's arguments -- Best regards, Vladimir ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list Nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
