Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!roch
From: roch@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Idea for another DOS device
Message-ID: <164000008@uiucdcsb>
Date: 2 Feb 88 17:23:00 GMT
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:<8801261908.AA07776@cory.Berkele:-38:uiucdcsb:164000008:000:478
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu!roch    Feb  2 11:23:00 1988


Matt's CAS: file cache device sounds good, but how about
letting the user select a replacement policy rather than
simply using a timeout?  

I can forsee someone who may use something infrequently, but 
still want it in their cache.  For example, if I am doing development,
I may be accessing certain include files & the compiler only every hour
or so.  I'd hate to have them deleted when the cache isn't
full simply because they were old.

			David Roch
			roch@b.cs.uiuc.edu