Hello, On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 08:15:10PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > These could be put in a completely separate interface for translator > > > control. But it might be easier just to add them to the existing > > > fs.defs -- after all, this is closely related to some of the > > > functionality fs.defs already provides... > > > > Doesn't fs.defs describe the interface common to all translators, > > which implement a filesystem interface? In this case, won't altering > > this file bring about problems because of the fact that the existing > > FS translators will not comply with the new interface definition? > > Hm... I don't remember, whether translators always have to implement all > the callbacks from libtrivfs/libnetfs/libdiskfs, or whether some of them > are optional?... > > In the latter case, additional RPCs probably could be introduced without > modifying the actualy translators. > Yes, indeed, some of the callbacks are optional (I hope I understand that right). I'll abandon clarifying this matter for now, but will get back to it in at most two weeks' time, I think. I'd like to finish the filtering translator and get sufficiently familiar with libnetfs at first. > But you are right that creating a new interface most likely is easier -- > I just wonder whether extending the existing one wouldn't be more > elegant... > > But I think we can safely postpone this questions, as we aren't even > sure yet whether new interfaces are needed at all :-) > Agreed. I'll concentrate my attention on libnetfs at the moment. > > Will it be right if I try to read the code of something like ext2fs in > > order to understand how to exhibit an interface complying with > > fs.defs? > > I have doubts about this being the best place. Probably better to look > at the helper libraries (trivs/netfs/diskfs), and/or the MiG-generated > server side stubs. Got it. Thanks for advice! > Well, it was clear that you did understand the underlying file system > doesn't change. But before my latest protest, you still didn't have > understood that accessing a node through special syntax doesn't have > *any* side effects at all... :-) > > > As far as I can understand now, if the user wants to access simply > > 'file' after applying '-u', they will always get the node 'file' with > > translators 'x', 'u', 'y', and 'z' -- all the static translators > > present in the underlying filesystem, right? > > Exactly. > > > So, requests for 'file,,-u' will always yield the same result, won't > > they? (I'm asking this to make sure I understand everything correctly) > > Indeed :-) I'm glad we got that sorted out. Oh yeah! I'm really happy now :-) scolobb
