RE: filexfer-07

["Richard Whalen" <Whalenr%process.com@localhost>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Galbraith [mailto:galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:01 PM
> To: Jeffrey Hutzelman
> Cc: Richard Whalen; der Mouse; ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: filexfer-07
> 
> 
:
> 
> What if we were to call them BLOCK_ instead of LOCK_;
> that might not intefere with pre-existing terminalogy
> and still expresses the meaning well.  (That is block
> as in prevent, not B-LOCK.)
> 
> As flags, they'd be:
> 
> BLOCK_READ
> BLOCK_WRITE
> BLOCK_DELETE
> 
> And as enums, they'd be:
> 
> BLOCK_NONE
> BLOCK_READ
> BLOCK_WRITE
> BLOCK_READ_WRITE
> BLOCK_DELETE
> BLOCK_DELETE_READ
> BLOCK_DELETE_WRITE
> BLOCK_DELETE_READ_WRITE
> 
> and in supported2:
>    byte block-mode
>      If bit 0 is on, block mode 0 (BLOCK_NONE) is supported,
>      if bit 1 is on, block mode 1 (BLOCK_READ) is supported,
>      and so on.
> 
> 

I like the idea of naming the flags BLOCK_, as it states the
actual intention and removes some of the confusion that is out
there in the names that various operating systems use.  It will
also make implementors work to understand what they need to do
rather than just match it to the similar sounding name on the
operating system (and possibly have it wrong).

Richard Whalen
Process Software