[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format
From: |
Johannes Berg |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format |
Date: |
Sat, 07 Feb 2004 01:12:52 +0100 |
I've been looking through the code in archive-pfs, archive-version and
the like because I wanted to implement a new archive format that is
accessed over pfs just like the old one. Basically, the abstraction is
there but so far tla always calls archive-pfs.
tla--archd can decide whether to use archive-pfs or archive-archd based
on the archive URI, but something that is using pfs cannot. So I was
thinking it might be desirable to have tla based on the
".archive-version" file which archive-XY layer to use.
Basically, I'm thinking this:
* if the archive URI is accessed via pfs, tla gets the .archive-version
* then, based on the contents, it creates an instance of archive-XY,
similar to how the pfs code handles things.
Example:
hackerlab-version1: instantiate archive-pfs with the readonly flag on
hackerlab-version2: instantiate archive-pfs normally
my-foobar-version1: instantiate archive-foo
My idea is to decouple the archive implementation and the pfs layer so I
can implement a new archive format that is also just accessed via pfs.
* Required changes
- arch_make_archive needs a new parameter to be able to create the
correct archive abstraction. Instead of calling arch_pfs_make_archive
it would then call arch_XY_make_archive
- arch_archive_connect_location needs to first decide on the URI which
access layer to use ("arch://" uses archive-archd, pfs uses pfs)
and at that point it either has an arch-handle (archive-archd) or it
reads -- through the correct pfs layer -- the ".archive-version" file
and asks all arch- layers if they can process an archive with that
version.
- some moving functions, not much really
The base changes would just be framework, but on top of that I'd be
interested in implementing an encrypted archive format (actually, I
already have a plan). It just seems wrong to implement it on top of
archive-pfs, so I'm thinking decoupling pfs and archive-pfs would be a
good thing.
Comments?
johannes
--
http://www.sipsolutions.de/
Key-ID: 9AB78CA5 Johannes Martin Berg <address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format,
Johannes Berg <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format, Tom Lord, 2004/02/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format, Johannes Berg, 2004/02/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format, Tom Lord, 2004/02/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format, Johannes Berg, 2004/02/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format, Johannes Berg, 2004/02/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format, Tom Lord, 2004/02/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] decoupling pfs/archive-pfs and the archive format, Johannes Berg, 2004/02/09