|
From: Yura P. <pak...@ip...> - 2005-08-24 16:01:11
|
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 13:45 -0200, Yuval wrote:
> On 8/24/05, Yura Pakhuchiy wrote:
> > I had not knew about this when wrote attribute resize (as I already said
> > our docs is incorrect in this part). Have to rewrite some parts. :-(
> >
> > Anyone please update our docs, something like this:
>
> I guess I'm that "Anyone" ;-)
Thanks.
> Can you point me exactly to the page(s)? (Your initial post suggested
> there is more than one)
I still using docs that I'm downloaded from our site, so I don't know
where it in xml version, sorry. In my version this information is in:
attributes/attribute_list.html. Second paragraph and comment before
"Notes" section.
> > Collation rule for attributes:
> > 1. Type.
> > 2. Name.
> > 3. Lowest VCN (for attributes that can become non-resident) /
> > Attribute value (for always resident attributes).
>
> Do I understand it correct:
> Let attr1 and attr2 both be unnamed 0x30 resident attributes, so their
> collation order is a lexicographical one?
Yes.
> "for attributes that _can_ become non-resident": Assume attr1 is
> resident, but allowed to be unresident, and attr2 is unresident. Which
> one comes first? Can this scenario even happen?
No, this can not happen. You can have 2 attributes with same name and
type only in case in $AttrDef states that they are always resident.
--
Cheers,
Yura
|
