From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:12:41 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] QTCTL? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: e1fb29aa-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 10/31/07, erik quanstrom wrote: > > The dynamic nature of namespace works against such conventions. > > Besides it would be nice to have a mechanism that could work in other > > systems that use 9p. File servers should be able to convey whether a > > file is cache-able or not. > > i'm not sure i follow this argument. plan 9 namespaces are dynamic. > one could put the network devices anywhere, but they are conventionally > put on /net. there are no "regular" files in /net. > > perhaps if you gave a concrete example of why conventions can't sort > this out it would make more sense to me. (i'm slow.) > /net.alt (for one) While there is value in having conventions for where certain synthetics are bound (like /net), that doesn't mean that alternate synthetics aren't located in arbitrary places. Even if you use conventional locations, these may be elsewhere when transitively mounted /n/remote/net. Then you have the fact that Inferno has additional synthetics (like /cmd) that don't match Plan 9 conventions. And people using p9p and v9fs on Linux may use yet another set of conventions. Hardcoding a set number of paths or having a set number of paths in a configuration file feels wrong and its my opinion that going down that path isn't the right solution. -eric