[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,
Erne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.