From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5d375e920708291841j136a3159q84b4633c3e163ff9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:41:34 +0200 From: Uriel To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: everything is a directory In-Reply-To: <1187974477.312600.39680@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1187901241.757160.291890@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1187974477.312600.39680@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: b2347b18-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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 wrote: > On Aug 24, 3:55 am, leim...@gmail.com (David Leimbach) wrote: > > On 8/24/07, jsnx 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. >