Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Stacking through chaining (v3)

From: Valdis.Kletnieks@private
Date: Thu Dec 02 2004 - 08:28:44 PST

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:09:18 CST, Jesse Pollard said:
> On Wednesday 01 December 2004 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@private wrote:
> ...
> > I'm not sure how I feel about that particular conflict resolution - we'd
> > have to be more specific about the calling order - would we:
> >
> > a) Call capable() first, and if it fails, then run the restrictive chain
> > b) Call capable() first, and if it succeeds, run the restrictive chain
> > c) call Capable(), run the chain, and return (capable || chain)
> > d) Run the restrictive chain, and if it fails, call capable() as a last
> > resort e) Run the restrictive chain, and if it succeeds, call capable()
> > f) Run both, and return (chain || capable)
> Did you mean: f) run both, and return (chain && capable)?
> since otherwise, (f) and (c) would appear equivalent.

D'Oh! ;)  Yes, F and C are duplicates - (chain && capable) *is* another
possibility, except it doesn't possess the property that capable will trump chain.
(In other words, it's a possible behavior, but not the behavior that Crispin
was talking about).  Personally, I think "run both and return (capable && chain)"
is a reasonable semantic, but I could be overlooking something.. ;)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 12:30:50 PST