Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
dat-discussions · DAT Collaborative
  • Members Only
  • Post
  • Files
  • Photos
  • Links
  • Database
  • Polls
  • Members
  • Groups Labs (Beta)
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Show off your group to the world. Share a photo of your group with us.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

   Messages Help
Message #
Search:
Advanced
RFC: DAT 1.2 and 2.0 library build and installation   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #4154 of 4166 |
RE: [dat-discussions] RFC: DAT 1.2 and 2.0 library build and installation

I think allowing co-existence is very important. Otherwise, commercial software will not be able to gracefully transition from 1.2 to 2.0 over time.

 

--Bill

 

From: dat-discussions@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dat-discussions@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Davis, Arlin R
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:29 PM
To: dat-discussions@yahoogroups.com
Cc: James Lentini
Subject: [dat-discussions] RFC: DAT 1.2 and 2.0 library build and installation

 

 

I am thinking about allowing coexistence of 1.2 and 2.0 libraries for the next release. This will insure that we continue to support 1.2 providers while new providers needing 2.0 features can also install and run on the same system. Does anyone see problems with this or have any suggestions other then separate naming conventions? I am thinking we will have to build/install 2.0 as dat2.conf, libdat2.so, libdapl2.so, and the development package as /usr/include/dat2/include.

 

comments?

 

Thanks,

 

-arlin

 
Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:19 pm

Show Message Option
bill.magro@...
Send Email Send Email

Forward 		Message #4154 of 4166 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

I am thinking about allowing coexistence of 1.2 and 2.0 libraries for the next release. This will insure that we continue to support 1.2 providers while new... 		Davis, Arlin R
ardyamhill
Offline Send Email 		Sep 17, 2007
9:31 pm

I think allowing co-existence is very important. Otherwise, commercial software will not be able to gracefully transition from 1.2 to 2.0 over time. --Bill ...
Magro, Bill
bill.magro@...
Send Email 		Sep 17, 2007
10:24 pm

Arlin, how do two proposed way impact configuration files? Thanks, Arkady Kanevsky email: arkady@... Network Appliance Inc....
Kanevsky, Arkady
arkadynetappcom
Offline Send Email 		Sep 18, 2007
12:50 pm

I am actually thinking about sticking with one dat.conf. For example, OFED would change to look like the following: # # DAT 1.2 and 2.0 configuration file # #...
Davis, Arlin R
ardyamhill
Offline Send Email 		Sep 20, 2007
5:32 pm

Then I do not see any problem with multiple libraries. How do you handle the change of signatures between 1.2 and 2.0 in redirection table? Thanks, Arkady...
Kanevsky, Arkady
arkadynetappcom
Offline Send Email 		Sep 21, 2007
6:46 pm

My understanding is that the RFC just allows the coexistence of different libraries but the consumers are still responsible of handling the difference between...
Xiong, Jianxin
xjx1998
Offline Send Email 		Sep 26, 2007
4:18 am
< Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Message #
Search:
Advanced
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help