From: boris@ftp.com
Date: 12/07/96-09:44:44 AM Z
From: boris@ftp.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 96 07:44:44 PST Subject: Re: Minor versioning Message-Id: <B-Mailer->961207074910.boris@ntbook> From other point we do not want to find ourselves in the situation that exists in current SMB, where W3.11, W95, NT3.1, NT3.51, and NT4.0 have REAL problems talking to each other. Boris --- On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:05:04 -0800 Brent Callaghan <brent.callaghan@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote: > >Minor versioning also has a good marketing rationale. > >Motivation for vendors to keep their implementation up-to-date. > >If company X advertises NFS V4.2 and company Y is only at V4.1 >then company Y is motivated to support V4.2. > >Of course, Joe customer doesn't care what's *in* version V4.2, >but the bigger number means "better" right ? :-) > > Brent > > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >>From mre@pacific.eng.sun.com Tue Dec 3 18:32:43 1996 >Subject: Re: Kick-off discussion >To: Guy Harris <guy@netapp.com> >Cc: nfs4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >> > Minor Versioning >> > ================ >> >> If the only thing one can do in version X.Y+1 of NFS is to add new > >Well one might be able to modify procedures in backwards compatible ways, >say by adding a flag bit, or adding (or deleting) an attribute in >an extended attribute manipulation procedure. > >> procedures, is there a reason why one can't just have clients attempt to >> use a new procedure and, if told "that procedure doesn't exist", fall >> back on whatever it would do in version X.Y? > >People are already trying this stunt to add their own custom >proprietary NFS ops to NFS V2 and NFS V3. Having >an explicit minor versioning scheme would tend to discourage that >practice. > >Having the NFS server explicitly report its minor version w/ a ops vector is a >fast way for the client to figure out what operations it can use, and what >semantics for each supported operation. > >Minor versioning is new territory, and I'd like to see something as >complete as possible, lest we find that we forgot something making the feature >useless. > > -mre > > > > >----- End Included Message ----- > > > -----------------End of Original Message-----------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:45:28 AM Z CST