From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:13:35 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com>,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] simple questions on bind semantics
Message-ID: <20040929031335.GA9793@submarine>
References: <20040928004656.GA2117@submarine>
	<7359f049040927175156a92c6b@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7359f049040927175156a92c6b@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ea07a6f0-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 05:51:54PM -0700, Rob Pike wrote:
> To have a fid, one needs a file, hence the fid must exist.

  That's the part I'm curious about. Why is that ? For the
  purposes of substituting you still have to maintain the
  information that file X is a 'bind' destination for file Y.
  Sure the lookup is much simpler when you really have Y and
  Z being served somewhere, but wouldn't it be quite simple
  to have a table (with a usual performance hit) that you consult
  when the real walk fails ?

  Or, to put differently, why mntgen is considered a better
  (or cleaner) solution than what I've just described.

Thanks,
Roman.