[AFS3-std] Re: rxgk: Version numbers in XDR structures

[Matt W. Benjamin]

Hi,

The safe union type I'm sure wasn't intended to be afs-specific, except insofar as rx is obviously developed under the umbrella of afs.   That isn't a layer, but the point seems to argue for changing the name of the union type.

Matt

----- "Simon Wilkinson" <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2011, at 15:38, Andrew Deason wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:17:52 +0000
> > Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>  4/ Rewrite the challenge definition in terms of either the
> proposed
> >>  new afs-union structure (which seems to me to break abstraction
> >>  layers)
> >
> > This is what I thought would be done in cases like this. What
> > abstraction is this breaking? The new type is at the XDR layer, like
>  
> > all
> > of the other XDR primitives.
> 
> That RX shouldn't have "afs" dependencies. If our intention is that  
> afs-union be a new, generic, XDR type, then we need to call it  
> something that doesn't have "afs" in the name.
> 
> S.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309