Dan Smith wrote:
JG> And we're okay with that failing? Not questioning the
validity,
JG> just confirming intent.
Yeah, I think so, because it means that either (1) the domain has
already been undefined (which is okay) or (2) that we'll end up with
the domain on both the remote and local machine. Either of these are
better than dropping the domain on the floor (i.e. not having it
defined in either place and it appearing to just, well, disappear.
Agreed?
It's pretty clear that worst-case is dropping it on the floor, I just
wasn't sure what our position was on having a domain on both machines.
I suppose there's no data loss, and the user can always go, "What are
you doing there?" and get rid of the stale one later. Works for me.
--
-Jay