On 10/31/07, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The dynamic nature of namespace works against such conventions.
> > Besides it would be nice to have a mechanism that could work in other
> > systems that use 9p. File servers should be able to convey whether a
> > file is cache-able or not.
>
> i'm not sure i follow this argument. plan 9 namespaces are dynamic.
> one could put the network devices anywhere, but they are conventionally
> put on /net. there are no "regular" files in /net.
>
> perhaps if you gave a concrete example of why conventions can't sort
> this out it would make more sense to me. (i'm slow.)
>
/net.alt (for one)
While there is value in having conventions for where certain
synthetics are bound (like /net), that doesn't mean that alternate
synthetics aren't located in arbitrary places. Even if you use
conventional locations, these may be elsewhere when transitively
mounted /n/remote/net.
Then you have the fact that Inferno has additional synthetics (like
/cmd) that don't match Plan 9 conventions. And people using p9p and
v9fs on Linux may use yet another set of conventions.
Hardcoding a set number of paths or having a set number of paths in a
configuration file feels wrong and its my opinion that going down that
path isn't the right solution.
-eric
