From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a0409071932104bdd44@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  7 Sep 2004 22:32:46 -0400
From: Russ Cox <russcox@gmail.com>
To: Joseph Holsten <pantosys@gmail.com>,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] losing files with ftpfs(4)
In-Reply-To: <873a03a604090718537c1bdf15@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <2eaf9873306a51b68f8a8396a98c8318@plan9.bell-labs.com>
	<062f01c4952f$cc73f710$f5667d50@SOMA>
	<873a03a604090718537c1bdf15@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dfcae0a8-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Why can't it create an empty file to test write access, and then
> rewrite the file after it receives it?

Ftpfs could employ all sorts of heuristics, but it still
won't get the semantics right 100%.  I agree that your 
heuristic is probably worth implementing, but there
aren't many people who want to go near that code.

We typically use ftpfs as read-only.  For writing, you're
better off with u9fs, perhaps invoked over ssh.

Russ