19 Mar
2008
19 Mar
'08
2:48 p.m.
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