On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:20:07PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 21:09 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > > seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 19:29 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> What do y'all thing about swapping the meaning of 'client' and 'server' > > >> back to what most people expect? The way func uses those labels now > > >> only makes sense to rabid xwindows developers. This is (IMNSHO) likely > > >> to cause more confusion and Pain the further along development goes. > > >> > > >> I'll volunteer to do said cleanup work if y'all agree it should be done. > > > > > > how about referring to it as master/node? > > > > Fine with me, assuming that's the terminology we decided to go with. I > > vaguely remember a terminology discussion awhile back, but not the > > result. > > > > master/node? > > or overlord/minion, maybe +1 :) I like neat names like this. Boring names like server/client, master/node are rather "enterprisey". Overloard and minion are cool. -- jesus m. rodriguez | jesusr@xxxxxxxxxx sr. software engineer | irc: zeus red hat network | 919.754.4413 x44413 +-------------------------------------------+ | "we can not change our past, but we can | | define our future" | +-------------------------------------------+
