From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <e3df5e554f45a5188f5210bcc5f74d90@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:56:51 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <0A1D14F2-63A1-432C-9B35-E1C6A4276DE4@sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P writes for directories
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ca4084f2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> >> to "create" would be POST with a metadata payload on a
> >> "subdirectory" URI. But of course, it is not a create at all.
> >
> > i'm not sure what fine hair you're trying to split.  why can't the
> > post contain the same information a create would?
>
>
> If "hair splitting" is the answer to the original question -- that's
> completely fine. In fact, I was looking for that to be an answer.
> It's just that everytime I see something being explicitly forbidden
> in 9P spec there's usually a pretty good reason for that.

i wasn't clear.  why can't you gather up the data from
the post and do a create rather than a write to the directory?

- erik