From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <f6c47cc3dc3a90c1ddde89f743b5b0f0@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] QTCTL?
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Thu,  1 Nov 2007 17:11:06 +0000
In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40711010958rc144015jf0b2d285f51ba67@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e3a75ab2-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> This is similar to the "changes" file proposed above, but it=C2=B4s sim=
ple, does not
> require two new RPCs (a server would respond to a Tinval with an Rerror
> (unknown request or whatever), is not an upcall (although behaves as on=
e) and
> may both let the client know which files changed and which cache
> entries are invalid.

the advantage of the changes file is that it requires no new rpcs at all
so you can do it today