From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <f9648467cad047cb6c0fc84dec71b082@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:36:52 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <4c45f1bad914a439cfb32234f26c1513@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] abaco @ plan9port [WAS: Hi and,
	plan9-native abaco sources?]
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 76a162b8-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I think this is a bad idea, what if you want to use an alternate
> webfs (on a different NIC), or an non-standard cookies file? do you
> want to wait whilst webcookies rescans it databse at startup and
> webfs rescans its cache (work in progress)?
>
> If we continue this way why not put the code for webfs and and webcookies
> in abaco, and why not include upas and nntpfs too; I guess you can see where
> this is leading...
>
> I think fgb's simple shell script is an elegant solution, if this is what
> you want (sh to rc translation not withstanding) but keeping webfs and webcookies
> as long lived external servers has significant benefits - it is The plan9 way™
> after all.

standard slippery slope argument.

i think that abaco (by inheratance from webfs) may confuse
elegance with unfriendliness.  for example, why do i have
to type "http://"?  why can't i type "g $query" to google
something?  why doesn't esc in the tag highlight like acme?

abaco is great stuff.  this is why i took the time to add a few
of these things to my version.  they might not be the height
of elegance.  they may not be added in the right place.  perhaps
webfs should do this.  but usability is important, too.

- erik