On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Skip Tavakkolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This approach seems to be flawed on two accounts: >> 1. it forces the server to resolve symlinks and special >> nodes, without an option for the client to do the same. >> That prevents cross-tree symlinks and nodes as the >> points of rendezvous *on the client*. IOW, the following >> will not work: >> $ mknod <imported FS>/test p >> $ echo test >> <imported FS>/test & >> cat <imported FS>/test >> I can buy a point of view that reading on a node that happens >> to be a character device should really bring the data from >> the remote server's device attached to that node. However, >> that point of view is much more difficult to sell for >> FIFOs. >> >> 2. It doesn't let manipulate these special files. IOW, >> readlink(2) fails and so does mknod(2)/symlink(2). > > operations like these (symlink, readlink, lock, etc.) that only have > significance at the extremities should not worry the transit relays. > that was the reason for Text/Rext proposal. > > regardless, interpretation of the ops in a hetergeneous environment > will be a problem.
It is not a problem if the ops are Topen/Tread/Twrite (on an alternative attach), as agreed at the first iwp9, sadly people seems to forget quite easily, and as brucee points out, lack of vision prevails, that is what doomed .u and will doom .L and other such silly and pointless hacks, trying to butcher 9P into becoming FUSE, way to go, and pray for ten thousand monkeys with typewriters because you will need them to beat the lunix monkeys at their own game. (Wasn't the disaster of adding .u to p9p a clear enough indication of how hopeless that path is?) Peace uriel
