[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What can a translator do that FUSE can’t?

From: Arne Babenhauserheide
Subject: Re: What can a translator do that FUSE can’t?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:00:49 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.31-gentoo-r6; KDE/4.4.90; x86_64; ; )

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 Hurd is a generically RPC-based system in a deep way.  Every kind
>    of subsystem in the Hurd universe is contacted via RPCs, with
>    appropriately specialized calls for whatever you want to do.
>    Filesystems (translators) are the standard rendezvous point for
>    finding a receiver for RPCs, but they do not constrain the interface
>    that client and server can use once they've made the rendezvous.

And here comes the core of my question: Which kinds of actions are really hard 
to map on a filesystem interface? Do you know examples for that? 

Are there actions which can’t be represented via a filesystem interface at all? 

Best wishes, 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]