From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200111081938.TAA20179@localhost.localdomain>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Nov 2001 10:39:46 GMT."
             <87r8r9yada.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu,  8 Nov 2001 19:38:17 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1a3b6086-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


> I'm saying that I think very nice advantages can accrue from saying
> "hey, the per-process mount table is a very nice thing: let's make the
> entire directory structure per-process, rather than just selected
> parts of it."  Now nothing here prevents a clever implementation that
> has a default, that allows for careful sharing and efficient lookups.
> But at the level of interfaces and what the user sees, this could be,
> I think, an improvement.

Seems to me that this would be the equivalent of binding every single
file in every file server, or alternatively restricting each file server
to serving but a single file.

Now the big question: what's the point? The early Plan 9 papers make the
point that one can rearrange one's view of the system to one's heart's
content, but that there are conventions that apply if you want everything
to work as expected. The advantages accrue from judicious application of
the namespace abilities. In the context of what you're describing, the
existing directory structures provided by the file servers are those
expected conventions.

steve