Re: [9fans] Re: everything is a directory

[Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>]

Fossil already provides something like 'svnfs' (but much simpler and
saner), as far as I can see your proposed texfs is no different
conceptually from upasfs, and nothing keeps you from using both
together.

And I certainly fail to see how adding attributes into the mix makes
composition any easier, they just add another meta-namespace with its
own ambiguities and clashes.

In the end, it is also good to remember that file servers, while
incredibly powerful, are not the perfect abstraction for everything,
when it comes to composition the tool/text-strem original unix
philosophy (this days lost everywhere except in Plan 9) is still the
most powerful, file servers simply and transparently expand the
environment where tools live and interact.

Not everything needs to be a file server, but everything should handle
text streams (ie., pipes or files).

Best wishes

uriel

On 8/29/07, jsnx <jason.dusek@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 3:55 am, leim...@gmail.com (David Leimbach) wrote:
> > On 8/24/07, jsnx <jason.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 23, 3:35 am, st...@quintile.net (Steve Simon) wrote:
> > > > I'am not trolling, I just don't see their efficacy in plan9.
> > > I don't see how to architect the system I discussed without attributes.
> > Build yourself a file server that provides the environment you want with
> > attributes... don't inject it into the core system.  Store it for real in
> > fossil files with a certain format.
> >
> > Done?
>
> If I want to have a system with the features of two distinct
> filesystems, what then? Attributes allow for composition, whereas the
> FS oriented approach appears not to.
>
> I would have to write (or obtain) a TeX fs, a SVN fs and then a TeX-
> SVN fs if I wanted to have those feature sets independently, if I am
> understanding you correctly.
>