[cgl_discussion] Re: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application Interfacespecification

Peter Badovinatz tabmowzo at us.ibm.com
Thu Jan 9 17:35:26 PST 2003

David Brower wrote:
> Frederic Herrmann wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > I would appreciate if you could point out the parts which are unnecessary
> > complicated so that we can give it a try at simplifying them.
> Well, OCF doesn't currently include checkpoint or DLM; that is what I meant
> as embellished features compared to OCF.    I don't think I ever said
> "unnecessary" (that being something I don't want to decide).   The existence
> of those features adds huge complexity.  Compare the thickness of the SAF
> 0.8 to the OCF stuff.  (Given that, the attempt to "simplfy" the DLM semantics
> struck me as ironic, leaving a partial DLM with no way for clients to portably
> use other features, like lock conversion.)


I was included among folks that originally believed we wouldn't include
DLM in initial SAF and save it for a follow-on. However, once it was put
on the table, I jumped on it with both feet with a proposal that
included lcok conversion.  Once the beatings, I mean animated
discussions, ceased, we ended up with what's there, which is between my
proposal and the original one that was first brought to SAF.  That's why
I stuck in the 'simplify', which I believe I've been told to edit out ;)

I was unable to convince folks of the desirability of conversion and
some of the other features that you, and other folks, may consider as

> -dB, without portfolio to get deeply involved.
> _______________________________________________
> OCF mailing list
> OCF at lists.community.tummy.com
> http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/ocf

Peter R. Badovinatz aka 'Wombat' -- IBM Linux Technology Center
preferred: tabmowzo at us.ibm.com / alternate: wombat at us.ibm.com
These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of IBM, Corp.

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list