Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:43:19 +0100 (MET) | From | DAVID BALAZIC <> | Subject | Re: Fw: Some very thought-provoking ideas about OS architecture. |
| |
Ben Laurie (ben@algroup.co.uk) wrote :
> shapj@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > Persistence is a curse, not a benefit, when applied to these things. > > > > We haven't found that to be true, and I'ld be interested to learn why you feel > > it is so. To the application, things appear no different than if the connection > > to the device was severed by (e.g.) a network failure. > > But isn't that the problem: the application may have done things in a > previous lifetime that caused changes at the other end of the connection > that it is now unaware of. > > However, it seems to me that this is no worse than what happens if the > application simply crashes, and in many ways better. Something I've > forgotten about EROS: can an application force a checkpoint? If so, then > I can't see how it can be in any way worse.
My thoughts : If consistency is important on the remote end , then the remote end should deal with it , instead blindly accepting any input.
Transactions , maybe ?
-- David Balazic , student E-mail : 1stein@writeme.com | living in sLOVEnija home page: http://surf.to/stein Computer: Amiga 1200 + Quantum LPS-340AT --
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |