Hello Jan,

On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 05:21:26PM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
> 
> They propagate fine, you're just not (yet) supposed to look at the same
> realm through all possible names it has from a single client.

it is not me who decides about the semantics, and I did not answer
to the questions myself so it is all my fault! :)

but as I am very concerned about the "globality" feature of Coda,
I cannot help intervening:

I would strongly suggest a different wording, like

---------------------
You are supposed to use the realm name and only the realm name.

Accesses through the servers' hostnames or ip numbers may work
ans may be useful for tests but are totally unsuitable for regular usage.

Even if a realm consists for the moment of a single server,
it is a very bad idea to use the server hostname as a realm name.
It becomes wrong at once when you add another server.
---------------------

The semantics of host names/ips is very different of the realm name.
We send wrong signals when we talk about the possibility to use either.

If Coda for some reason would support accessing the same data via different
"realm" names, it would confuse the administrators and the users a lot,
without adding any real functionality.

1. There is no need to use different names. You can _always_ do
with one global name.
2. Arbitrary use of alternative names and shotcuts is shown to destroy
global usability of the objects accessed in that way.

Coda is really unique in the sence that it seamlessly provides
a truly global name space. No other file system (known to me)
does it as consequently as Coda, and it is a very important property.

Please, keep it that way.

My best regards,
--
Ivan