Hello, On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 04:17:17AM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > > > Yes, a translator can attach itself to multiple nodes, but if a > > translator takes an active role in attaching itself it cannot be set > > as a passive (start on demand) translator. > > Eh? Why not?...
I worded that too strongly... I don't like the idea of e.g. settrans <target> hpm <interface>, because it would be tricky to handle moving or deleting the interface node. For some reason I didn't think it through that my suggestion would just move the problem to the interface , e.g. settrans <target> hpm; settrans <interface> hpm-interface <target>. Still it seems more natural to me. > > It is also possible to forward the actual startup request from the > > interface translator to the target translator, which would then take > > over the node, leaving you with a single running translator. I'm not > > sure I'd recommend this approach though. > > Again, why not? Again, it seems like a natural split to me. One translator per filesystem: one to merge the different packages into a single filesystem, and the other to interact with it. Regards, Fredrik
