HI, On 3/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, That's what I mean, yes. (Replacing before calling hurd_file_name_lookup().) > If so, how can we handle the case that applications directly call > hurd_file_name_lookup to find a server? Interesting question... Of course, this case wouldn't be covered. But I wonder how likely applications are actually to attempt this, and whether it's a good idea to try to catch this if they do -- I'd guess such a situation would mean they want to do something very special.
Maybe, you are right. I have to further investigate before a conclusion. But I still suspect it is not good for security reasons - we may want a process to use a overriding server blindly. And, I think in a micro-kernel based multi-server OS, we should provide applications more flexibility rather than forcing the standard lib and standard interface of a lib.
The server-side variant (approach 2) could enforce this. I'm not convinced though that implementing local namespaces in all the filesystem servers is a good thing. A more hurdish solutions seems using proxy filesystem servers. Also see my comment at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2007-03/msg00050.html
I read it, but do not like the idea. I think it costs too much to matain an entire namespace for each process. At least, for overring limited default servers, it does not deserve the expense. I agree with your comments on environment variables. Using them is not user-friendly, and not good for control. Thanks again for your advice. Discussion with you give me much help. Regards, Wei Shen
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
