Re: alternate simplified proposal #1 (un-found resources)
Richard Frost (frost@sdsc.edu)
Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Parkson Wong wrote:
> >
> > Parkson writes:
> In the case of a hint (info), if piofs does not exist on the system, it
> is perfectly O.K. to open the file and create it on the default file system.
> So the code is actually portable. But it may not be what you expected.
> Remember, info is only a hint and does not affect semantics and the
> implementation could took liberty at interpreting the hints.
>
> In the piofs:/foo case, the implementation will return an error. That
> means your code will fail in system that does not support piofs, so the
> code is not portable. But you know excatly what happened.
I would certainly return a warning in the alternate version (using info).
It's only sane to do so.
Consider when info (hints) are used to specify an access pattern, hpss
class, etc. If these are ignored, you'll probably want a warning status
returned.
Further, I am compelled to argue that some external systems cannot be
soley identified by a single prefix. Hence, my quest for info.
- Richard