On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 17:00, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Yah, I think that's true. Consider my opinion duly amended :-D
Received on 2009-10-02 02:25:47 CEST