From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: viewprinting: what format should views be stored in? (let me quickly correct an imprecision) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:37:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4122C0EA.8010607@namesys.com> References: <411FFCB4.2060400@namesys.com> <41201252.1080803@comcast.net> <412015D0.8030806@namesys.com> <41210FF5.7080605@comcast.net> <4121AEAA.8050008@namesys.com> <41225C9C.7050400@comcast.net> <41226A50.3010609@namesys.com> <412298E1.4080100@comcast.net> <4122BD60.2090601@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <4122BD60.2090601@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: George Beshers , ReiserFS List Let me instead of the previous email, say: For me, the big issue to decide at the start is, should a view specification be implemented with a format that is as if it is a subdirectory of the masked executable, and which we then take the filenames used by the executable and traverse the subdirectory as though it was root, and if we reach a valid fall through point, then allow we traverse from the real filesystem root, and if not, we issue a suitable error. This would let us use all the semantic tree traversal code already written by us. It would however require us to add such plugins as "fall through points", and "prints", etc. If really lucky, you could have some working plugins in 4 months, and maybe have masking software done by the end of the contract. I think the answer is yes, we want to do it this way, but I am going to think about it as I jog for an hour. Please come up with arguments for and against it. > > Hans >