On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 02:41:59PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> If I hear nothing, I expect I'll go with "option #1."  In principle,
> #3 is the "cleanest," but it's definitely the most work.

I'm uncomfortable with option 1: this seems like a much stronger lock
requirement than I think we originally anticipated.  At the very
least, it seems like it causes a requirement to be very careful in
building your replication sets -- more careful than I think most
users are willing to tolerate.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs at crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well. 
		--Dennis Ritchie