On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 16:07, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>>...
>>> * Authz is (currenty, brokenly :) a RA-layer-specific optional
>>> feature; obliterate cannot be.
>>
>> That's not a conceptual difference. Authz is RA-layer-specific just a
>> de-facto outcome of how authz was developed. A comparable situation with
>> obliterate is that it could be FS-type-specific - implemented for FSFS
>> but not BDB or vice versa, and at least it will necessarily have
>> different supporting implementations for the two FS types.
>>
>> Of course users will want obliterate to be available on both FSFS and
>> BDB, and as developers we will want the design and implementation to be
>> as FS-agnostic as possible, but it will certainly be dependent on if and
>> when we implement equivalent things in two back-ends.
>
> I would not be opposed to telling people "you must use FSFS for the
> obliterate feature". I'm sure others may feel differently, but there's
> my vote/opinion.
I seem to recall Julian mentioned it would be easier to implement this
with BDB. Would you agree that we would probably not be OK with only
supporting it fully in BDB? IOW, supporting it in FSFS is probably a
must, and BDB is only nice.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2402689
Received on 2009-10-01 23:00:07 CEST