It would be far too much work to port and we want to strive for
portability not for constructions that are exclusive to a single
platform. 

This works fine under Windows 95 - we haven't tried 98 yet, but don't
expect any problems.

- Peter -

Shyh-Wei Luan writes:
 > On Oct 8,  3:40pm, Peter J. Braam wrote:
 > > Subject: Re: Coda Win95 port
 > > None of the clients you mention use a user level program to service kernel
 > > calls [which effectively sit below the mutex that is taken].
 > >
 > > Coda could in principle be implemented in the kernel, like they are.  From
 > > practical perspectives that would be a disaster.
 > 
 > Which perspective(s) is/are making it the worst?  Is it simply too much and
 > too complex to port?  Are there some modules (LWP, rx, cache manager I/O, etc.)
 > more difficult (to get into the kernel) than the rest?  Would it help to not
 > to do disk caching (only memory caching) at all?  I guess this would defeat
 > one main purpose of Coda - disconnected mode operation, but would it be simpler
 > at all that way?
 > 
 > > There will be a release of the 95 code for Coda that actually works in
 > > about 6 weeks from now.  A visiting student to our group Marc Schnieder
 > > has made good progress fixing a few bugs and implementing some missing
 > > components.
 > 
 > Nice to hear this!  Would this DOS application solution be an interim solution
 > or it will be "the" solution for Window 95?  Would this solution be very
 > vulnerable to the announced plan of discountinuing DOS support beyond
 > Windows98?
 > 
 > Shyh-Wei Luan
 > 
 > 
 > --