Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.80]) by krbdev.mit.edu (8.9.3p2) with ESMTP id QAA08841; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j58KCvKH018745; Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [18.18.1.76] (KEN-WIRELESS.MIT.EDU [18.18.1.76]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as raeburn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.1/8.12.4) with ESMTP id j58KCcZH000125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:12:52 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <rt-3091-14169.19.705788806623@krbdev.mit.edu>
References: <rt-3091-14169.19.705788806623@krbdev.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <d710c49e92c56aba7325b25f7320c6a4@mit.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [krbdev.mit.edu #3091] add krb5_cc_new_unique() 
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:12:37 -0400
To: rt@krbdev.mit.edu
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622)
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Scanned-BY: MIMEDefang 2.42
RT-Send-Cc: 
X-RT-Original-Encoding: us-ascii
Content-Length: 588

On Jun 8, 2005, at 16:00, Jeffrey Altman via RT wrote:
> The name of the function and its behavior were discussed for several
> weeks on krbdev@mit.edu.  Consensus on the name was reached at that
> time and Heimdal has already committed the functionality.  How strong 
> is
> your objection?

The behavior I'm fine with, the name ... well, I'm blanking on the 
discussion, and it looks like I didn't participate.  Not a strong 
objection; sensible naming of functions is already something people 
shouldn't be expecting of us. :-)  Maybe we can fix that when we design 
a Real API.

Ken