On Friday 16 July 2010 00:04:31 Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Unlike the Hurd, Plan 9 exposes everything textually (through a file
system interface), but that is sometimes awkward (the ‘ctl’ files...)
and the marshalling/unmarshalling is probably inefficient compared to
what MIG and similar tools can
Hi,
Roland McGrath rol...@frob.com writes:
It's all just software. You can encode your interfaces any way you want.
Unlike the Hurd, Plan 9 exposes everything textually (through a file
system interface), but that is sometimes awkward (the ‘ctl’ files...)
and the marshalling/unmarshalling is
Hi Roland,
There are two core things about translators vs other systems' filesystems:
1. passive translators.
These are definitely great, yes!
2. They are naming points for arbitrary RPCs.
In FUSE, the only kind of interface available is the filesystem
interface.
The
It's all just software. You can encode your interfaces any way you want.
Roland McGrath rol...@frob.com writes:
It's all just software. You can encode your interfaces any way you
want.
… It will just take some time to convince the future users of
your code that this encoding is convenient and natural.
I'm quite sure that there may be
Hi,
I just realized that I couldn’t remember stuff which translators can do which
FUSE can’t.
What additional usecases do translators provide by offering more than
filesystem
operations?
This isn’t meant as attack or similar. I just found myself bedazzled at the
realization that I don’t
There are two core things about translators vs other systems' filesystems:
1. passive translators. Other systems approximate this with things like
automount mount points. Hurd translators can be (and usually are)
permanently associated with a file on the containing filesystem. In
Unix
