On 9/5/16, 1:16 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>Adrien JUND wrote: >>> Separate from that, it's been a little work disentangling the meaning >>>of various names used for this project. Here's what I think the names >>>mean: >>> >>> FUSE - a protocol, which exists in different versions >>> WinFSP - a Windows-native DLL mapping FUSE 2.8 ops to/from Windows >>>file ops >>> cygfuse - a Cygwin DLL allowing Cygwin SSHFS and FUSEPY to use WinFSP >>> >>> If that's correct, I'd like to regularize the names of things in the >>>proposed cygfuse package to accurately reflect their meaning. E.g., >>>change fuse.cygport to cygfuse.cygport, etc. The doc inside some files >>>might need updating. >> >> About cygfuse description, does the goal of cygfuse is not to wrappe >> FUSE API for user land file systems like Dokan, WinFSP, CBFS, and >> others ? >> >> I have tried to see how to integrate Dokan in cygfuse and it is >> currently hard linked to WinFSP and makes hard the integration for >> others FS. >> A neutral interface with common operations should be made to fix the >>situation. > >I believe all interested parties have agreed we want to support multiple >FUSE >implementations. cygfuse is intended to be the connector between a FUSE >implementation and Cygwin versions of FUSE apps like SSHFS and FUSEPY. >The idea >was to allow different FUSE implementations (e.g., WinFSP, Dokan, etc) >under the >hood without having to modify the Cygwin level apps SSHFS, FUSEPY, etc to >match. > >As currently implemented, cygfuse is hardwired to work with WinFSP. >That's only >a consequence of cygfuse having been provided by WinFSP's author. The >plan is >to extend cygfuse so that it can support multiple FUSE implementations of >which >one is selected at runtime. > >Currently, if WinFSP is installed on the system (determined by the >existence of >a particular registry key) then cygfuse attaches to the WinFSP DLL. This >code >needs to be extended to check whether Dokan is installed (determined by >some >mechanism TBD) and then attach to Dokan's DLL. And so on for other >future >implementations. > >I'm trying to get my understanding of the pieces and naming correct in >order to >modify the cygfuse code to be more generic and less tied to WinFSP. Mark, thank you. I agree with everything you said. Bill