On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 12:00:21AM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> To help explain why the backup and file distribution have such different
> implementation issues, let me give some background.
>
>
> This is a dump of an OpenVMS native text file. This is the format that
> virtually all text
To help explain why the backup and file distribution have such different
implementation issues, let me give some background.
This is a dump of an OpenVMS native text file. This is the format that
virtually all text editors produce on it.
Dump of file PROJECT_ROOT:[rsync_vms]CHECKSUM.C_VMS;1
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 05:39:22PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2002, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The server has no need to deal with cleint limitations. I
> > am saying that the protocol would make the bare minimum of
> > limitatons (null termination, no nulls in names).
>
On 27 Jul 2002, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The server has no need to deal with cleint limitations. I
> am saying that the protocol would make the bare minimum of
> limitatons (null termination, no nulls in names).
It probably also makes sense to follow NFS4 in representing
paths as
> "JS" == jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote the following on Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:05:50 -0700
JS> As a poor example let us suppose that a filename contained a
JS> "/". A UNIX system using translation might turn this into "_".
JS> Escapement might turn it into "=2F" and "=" into
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 02:50:52PM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> Lenny Foner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >jw schultz wrote:
> > I find the use of funny chars (including space) in filenames
> > offensive but we need to deal with internationalizations and
> > sheer stupidity.
> >
> >Regardles
Martin Pool wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2002, "John E. Malmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>A clean design allows optimization to be done by the compiler, and tight
>>optimization should be driven by profiling tools.
>
>
> Right. So, for example, glib has a very smart assembly ntohl() and
>
Lenny Foner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jw schultz wrote:
> I find the use of funny chars (including space) in filenames
> offensive but we need to deal with internationalizations and
> sheer stupidity.
>
> Regardless of what you think about them, MacOS comes with pathnames
> containing sp
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:06:23 -0700
From: jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I find
the use of funny chars (including space) in filenames
offensive but we need to deal with internationalizations and
sheer stupidity.
Regard
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:31:51PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2002, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That is the better approach. Use I/O routines so most
> > processing can be "while (get_input()) { process(); send_output()}"
> > Then the I/O routines can be defined accori
On 21 Jul 2002, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is the better approach. Use I/O routines so most
> processing can be "while (get_input()) { process(); send_output()}"
> Then the I/O routines can be defined accorinding to platform.
while 1:
examine fd
if input available:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 03:34:37PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2002, "John E. Malmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If you structure the protocol processing where no subroutine ever posts
> > a write and then waits for a read, you can set up a library that can be
> > used eithe
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; OpenVMS COMPAQ_AlphaServer_DS10_466_MHz; en-US;
>rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020614
If something as complex as Mozilla can run on OpenVMS then I guess we
really have no excuse :-)
--
Martin
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/
On 22 Jul 2002, "John E. Malmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Qualities
> >
> > 1. Be reasonably portable: at least in principle, it should be
> > possible to port to Windows, OS X, and various Unixes without major
> > changes.
>
> In general, I would like to see OpenVMS in that list.
Yes, O
> Qualities
>
> 1. Be reasonably portable: at least in principle, it should be
> possible to port to Windows, OS X, and various Unixes without major
> changes.
In general, I would like to see OpenVMS in that list.
> Principles
>
> 1. Clean design rather than micro-optimization.
A clean
15 matches
Mail list logo
