David Boyes wrote: > I suspect we're disagreeing more on what "better" means here than anything > else. I find most configuration files incredibly crude and static. There are > other ways to think about this, and much of the current command line options > are there to cope with the fact that there is no self-tuning capability in > AFS. If I were developing additions, I'd be looking to eliminate that > problem, rather than finding new ways to express a lot of static > limitations.
The long term direction is absolutely to make things more self-tuning. Getting there is going to take a long time. In the meantime we have been asked to accept patches which take some of the existing hard coded configuration parameters and provide alternates. I do not wish to us replace one set of hard coded configuration with another. Especially when I know that more than one organization has internally patched those values to better tune the AFS servers for their environment. I also would prefer that those sites be able to use our standard binary distributions. As such there needs to be someplace to specify the alternative values.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
