On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:12:20AM +0200, Codogno Maurizio wrote: > > From: Brian E Carpenter > This said, I still think that having multiple roots is a > Bad Thing, because it gives much more hassles than advantages: but > I don't think it is fair to give an answer hiding workable > solutions. <mild rant> Maybe I'm just getting older or else the caffiene hasn't kicked in yet but this is something that has really started to bug me over the past few years. While it may not be the case in the lower layers where the laws of physics hold more sway, at least in the applications area the world is suffering from a bad case of "any solution that accomplishes the task is just as valid as any other" syndrome. Just because you might be able to figure out how to bend over backwards fifteen times and end up making alternate roots work for a few cases doesn't mean its a viable solution. Given enough money and time you can turn _any_ combination of random hairbrained ideas into a 'workable' solution. IMHO, simply saying something is 'workable' is so far away from not being sufficient that to use it as a point in a debate is specious at best. We're not here to just make something work. We should be here rigorously applying sound engineering principles that have been found to work for large heterogeneous networks. And one of those principles is that infrastructure level hierarchical namespaces require one root. In other words, its also been proven that using carrier pigeons as a transport layer is also workable. Does that mean that workable is sufficent? No. Instead it means that being a 'workable solution' is meaningless... </mild rant> -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net