Joe Touch wrote:
> > however for each of these definitions it would be relatively easy to
> > find a counterexample. it might be premature to consider these now,
> > but i'm sure we could give examples of mechanisms that copy server
> > output but can hardly be called caching, are initiated by server,
> > but are still considered to be caches etc.
>
> The purpose of these definitions (or the matrix thereof) is
> to provide a grounding for the base concepts. One thing
> we know all too well in WREC is that there is:
>
> - a counter example for every definition
>
> - a(nother) definition for any phrase
>
> The question is whether we can define caching and replication
> sufficient to distinguish them for the taxonomy.
Agreed. That's why I thought it might be premature to give
counterexamples.
Probably unnecessary and confusing at all.
[...]
>
> I.e., mirror refers to the server,or collection, not the
> individual items. A datum is replicated; the collection is
> mirrored. (at least that's what I'm trying to convey).
>
how about: a datum is copied, the collection is mirrored ?
--w
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST