Glenn asks:
> Surely this is the only instance in which a backup utility needs to
> *inspect* the contents of what is being backed up. (Of course, it also
> inspects the contents of its own "indirection" file, if one is specified.)
>
> Is there anything else on the horizon that has this "inspect me to see
> what you *really* need" characteristic?

CM KSAM?  Sure would be nice for STORE to automatically backup the key file
if you specify only the data file (barring, of course, a keyword that says
"hey...don't do that!")

OTOH, CM KSAM key files aren't such a problem any more.

> Would there be any point in establishing a standard -- either a directory
> or a naming convention -- which would say "whenever 'x' is to be backed up,

A naming convention wouldn't help with IMAGE, I suspect.  Instead, it would
be Real Nice to have a facility whereby code/products/subsystems/applications
could register with the root file the fact that file xxxx should be considered
part of the database for the purpose of store, restore, secure, release, and/or
purge.  This has been discussed a few times in the past couple of years,
in SIGIMAGE.

> automatically. (One could argue that the root file already serves this
> purpose, but it just seems wacky that a backup utility must examine the
> contents of a given file type to know what REALLY needs to happen.)

OTOH, what *else* should it examine?  Any other location is by definition
disjoint from the root file, and therefore subject to getting out of
synch with it.

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html