RE: Init is dead?

I agree that we'll be waiting a while for this all to be formalized, but I
think we've now authorized some experimentation.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:01 PM
> To: 'ZIG'
> Subject: Re: Init is dead?
> 
> 
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> 
> > Wow!  Was my argument for making Init optional so 
> persuasive that you're all
> > convinced and it is now a dead subject?
> 
> Yes as a matter of fact I'm prepared to support the idea, 
> based both on your
> reasoning and Bob's.  Re-evaluating my earlier argument, the case for
> encapsulation is that when you actually do need Init, 
> encapsulation enables
> single-round-trip. However, I'm prepared to concede that my 
> agrument that
> encapsulation means that you should include Init even when 
> you don't need it was
> overstated.
> 
> Note of course, when we're talking about making Init 
> optional, we're talking
> about version 4.
> 
> --Ray
> --
> Ray Denenberg
> Library of Congress
> rden@loc.gov
> 202-707-5795
> 
>

Received on Friday, 12 January 2001 13:35:38 UTC