Bruce wrote:
 
> My feeling (based on absolutely no empirical data whatsoever, making this
> the quintessential Usenet post :-) ) is that the failure of an expansion
> due to insufficient disc space is a much less frequent occurrence than the
> filling of an expansion increment. This means that the current behavior
> will "break" more applications than the requested behavior. Guy's comment
> applies equally to DDX-aware applications: if a DDX-aware application calls
> DBINFO mode 205, discovers that there really ought to be room, and starts
> its updates, it's no less susceptable to the out-of-disc-space failure than
> the DDX-ignorant application that gets the right answer from the
> hypothetical changed DBINFO mode 202.
 
Good point, but at least the DDX-Aware application can anticipate the
possibility.  If the nature of the data being returned from DBInfo
changes, the DDX-Ignorant applications may fail based on existing
assumptions about available (already allocated) space.
 
My overly conservative nature I guess :->
 =======================================================================
Guy Smith                                Voice:  804-527-4000 ext 6664
Circuit City Stores, Inc.                  FAX:  804-527-4008
9950 Mayland Drive                      E-Mail:  [log in to unmask]
Richmond, VA 23233-1464         Private E-Mail:  [log in to unmask]
 
The thoughts expressed herein are mine and do not reflect those of my
employer, or anyone with common sense.