On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Matt Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > I sense we don't want to ACL info (whether or not per-file) in > AFSFetchStatus64... > > Since you bring that up, what the cache managers do now to cache access > control information (axsache) doesn't rely on the specific access list > that might be on an object, right? A cache manager can get this > information, but it does so only to permit ACLs to be displayed and > edited. So when we specified this aspect of per-file ACLs for GSOC, we > were assuming that notionally doesn't change, just ACLs may be > associated with file objects as well. So clarifying, are you (Derrick) > thinking of a different model for client caching of access control > information than we currently have?
not necessarily; i assume if we go ahead with per-file ACLs as was worked on for GSoC last summer, that we should at least consider before minting a new RPC if there are any optimizations we'd want which would need something accomodated in that new RPC. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
