Fossil already provides something like 'svnfs' (but much simpler and saner), as far as I can see your proposed texfs is no different conceptually from upasfs, and nothing keeps you from using both together.
And I certainly fail to see how adding attributes into the mix makes composition any easier, they just add another meta-namespace with its own ambiguities and clashes. In the end, it is also good to remember that file servers, while incredibly powerful, are not the perfect abstraction for everything, when it comes to composition the tool/text-strem original unix philosophy (this days lost everywhere except in Plan 9) is still the most powerful, file servers simply and transparently expand the environment where tools live and interact. Not everything needs to be a file server, but everything should handle text streams (ie., pipes or files). Best wishes uriel On 8/29/07, jsnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 24, 3:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Leimbach) wrote: > > On 8/24/07, jsnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 23, 3:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Simon) wrote: > > > > I'am not trolling, I just don't see their efficacy in plan9. > > > I don't see how to architect the system I discussed without attributes. > > Build yourself a file server that provides the environment you want with > > attributes... don't inject it into the core system. Store it for real in > > fossil files with a certain format. > > > > Done? > > If I want to have a system with the features of two distinct > filesystems, what then? Attributes allow for composition, whereas the > FS oriented approach appears not to. > > I would have to write (or obtain) a TeX fs, a SVN fs and then a TeX- > SVN fs if I wanted to have those feature sets independently, if I am > understanding you correctly. >
