--On Thursday, July 23, 2009 06:43:35 PM -0400 "Matt W. Benjamin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
7. Letting clients and servers negotiate a set of appropriate semantics
for operating on a given object, within some given parameters meaningful
to the server implementation and storage configuration--this provides a
framework for moving around the weak..strong space adaptively, allowing
support for a wider range of applications than any fixed semantics could
provide
I see no problem with you being able to negotiate different semantics for
yourself. However, unless you are somehow privileged, you must not be able
to negotiate different semantics for _me_. We can argue at some point
about exactly what that means, but at a minimum, I think it means things
like...
- You must not be able to force mandatory locking on me, unless you are
privileged in some way (for example, by being allowed to set some access
right or other property of the file).
- You must not be able to decide that, when you write a file, a callback
to me is broken asynchronously, such that another RPC made on that file
by me or by a client with whom I am cooperating begins before I have
been notified that you changed the file.
Further, there must be some common set of semantics where are guaranteed to
be implemented by every fileserver and every client.
Further still, there are some things which are basic properties of the
protocol and are not open to negotiation. I believe the one-to-one
relation between (FID,DV) and bit strings is one of these, as is the
one-to-one relation between FIDs and files.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
