From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:42:20 -0500 From: "Dan Cross" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <1228267561.16585.64.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <312a6a45e31e2c3acf38b5262eab0b9f@quanstro.net> <1228267561.16585.64.camel@goose.sun.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent of automounter Topicbox-Message-UUID: 56ddbdf4-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote: > The client does not pick. It is part of the automounter's decision. > And once the server gets picked by the automounter, it is awfully > convenient that you see the actual mount as part of the namespace. Folks are talking at cross-purposes here; I think it's a semantics issue more than anything. In Plan 9, the automounter would be considered part of the client. In plan 9, the canonical way to implement an automounter would be with a filesystem that did it on your behalf; the smarts for all the replication and so on would be put there. The namespace would be visible by asking the automounter (which in this environment is probably a filesystem) what the namespace is. There's nothing in the environment that prevents it from being implemented other than time and inclination. - Dan C.