> 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/