From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <36c9016b7918c302d777f1a605fc107f@brasstown.quanstro.net> References: <36c9016b7918c302d777f1a605fc107f@brasstown.quanstro.net> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:59:33 +0100 Message-ID: From: Giacomo Tesio To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d1c8c7e055050de0b0bc Subject: Re: [9fans] wstat and atomic directory change Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3f1db0fc-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a11c3d1c8c7e055050de0b0bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It surely would not be conformant to Plan 9 systems, but to the protocol? As far as I can read intro(5), it explicitly excludes slash as a valid character for the Plan 9 OS, but it also explicitly states that "the protocol has no such restriction". Be patient: I'm asking because this could be a typo in the intro(5) man page, or in my understanding of its phrasing. Still, using this protocol "feature" to enable atomic directory change could be useful in my use cases, but I don't want to build yet another 9p2000 extension. Giacomo 2015-01-30 15:13 GMT+01:00 erik quanstrom : > > Now, since the protocol does not restrict names (even if Plan 9 does it), > > I'm wondering if setting the name to a full path starting from root could > > be used to change atomically the directory of a file (given the write > > permission on both original and target directory). > > > > Obviously I'm not referring to Plan 9 file servers (I guess this would > be a > > non retrocompatbile change), but I'm considering if such interpretation > > would be wrong (according to the official specifications). > > > > A server supporting such behaviour could be considered a 9p2000 > conformant > > server? > > it would not be conformant. the intro explicitly excludes slash as a > valid character. > (unlike a dns zone.) and its more detailed explinations are meant to hold > for the > entire section. > > but you could still do it, as long as the file servers were the same. > > - erik > > --001a11c3d1c8c7e055050de0b0bc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It surely would not be conformant to Plan 9 systems, but t= o the protocol?

As far as I can read intro(5), it explic= itly excludes slash as a valid character for the Plan 9 OS, but it also exp= licitly states that "the protocol has no such restriction".
=

Be patient: I'm asking because this could be a typo= in the intro(5) man page, or in my understanding of its phrasing.

Still, using this protocol "feature" to enable a= tomic directory change could be useful in my use cases, but I don't wan= t to build yet another 9p2000 extension.


Giacomo


2015-01-30 15:13 GMT+01:00 erik quanstrom <qua= nstro@quanstro.net>:
> Now, since the protocol does not restrict names (even if Pl= an 9 does it),
> I'm wondering if setting the name to a full path starting from roo= t could
> be used to change atomically the directory of a file (given the write<= br> > permission on both original and target directory).
>
> Obviously I'm not referring to Plan 9 file servers (I guess this w= ould be a
> non retrocompatbile change), but I'm considering if such interpret= ation
> would be wrong (according to the official specifications).
>
> A server supporting such behaviour could be considered a 9p2000 confor= mant
> server?

it would not be conformant.=C2=A0 the intro explicitly excludes slas= h as a valid character.
(unlike a dns zone.)=C2=A0 and its more detailed explinations are meant to = hold for the
entire section.

but you could still do it, as long as the file servers were the same.

- erik


--001a11c3d1c8c7e055050de0b0bc--