Re: sftp rename not good.

[Dan O'Reilly <dano%process.com@localhost>]

At 05:41 PM 5/13/2003, Damien Miller wrote:
> Dan O'Reilly wrote:
> > Why should the client care at all?  The basic requirement is "support a
> > rename function".  Why should the client *SOFTWARE* (not USER) care how
> > the server system actually performs that?
>
> Because the semantics matter: will the server's rename() overwrite an
> existing file? Is it atomic? Will it cross filesystems?
>
> Put a different way: if the semantics are irrelevant, then why are we
> even having this discussion?

Because somebody is trying to make the semantics relevant in a VERY
system-specific (i.e., UNIX) way.  I'm trying to make the semantics
irrelevant as I believe they should be.  Why should I care how UNIX does
a rename function versus VMS?  The important thing is that the rename
occurs.

For example: in UNIX, it may be illegal to rename a file if one of the
same name exists.  In VMS, it may or may not be illegal, depending on
if file versions are specified for the complete file specification supplied
to the rename function.

------
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |
| Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |
| Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |
| http://www.process.com        |                                        |
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+