Re: [iSCSI:] Logout request -- reason? Correction

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

I think you are over stating you case.  I, and others I have talked to do
not see this as a problem with OO code.  In any event, we are not in the
business of "code beauty".  If we put that as a base, we would never
complete.

Lets focus on what is broken!

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
Main Office (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Home Office (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


Luben Tuikov <luben@splentec.com>@ece.cmu.edu on 05/28/2002 08:53:21 AM

Sent by:    owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:    Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>
cc:    ips@ece.cmu.edu, John Hufferd/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:    Re: [iSCSI:] Logout request -- reason? Correction



John Hufferd wrote:
>
> There is nothing broken here, this is preference.  I see no reason to
move
> it again.  Julian, did announce it and we accepted it.
> We should be moving towards closure.
>

Paul Koning wrote:
>
> I objected before and I'll object again.
>
> It would be very nice if we could stop making gratuitous changes to
> packet formats and get the spec finished instead.

In other words you have no problem with those changes
taking place, you simply oppose to them, lest the
PDU format become more object oriented friendly.

The people in C wouldn't mind that much since they are used to
dealing with bit shifting and what not, but the people in
C++ where this inconsistency would mean an ugly base class,
and an unbecoming implementation would cringe at the look of it.

You should've at least recognised that this would
be a _good_ architectural change, and then give your reasons
for _not_ implementing it, rather than calling them
``gratuitous changes''.

I'm not posting here out of whim -- I really do care.

--
Luben