Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure I know which approach would be easier for this project (the one you mentioned - dealing with FUSE systems, or creating resource instances (e.g. SkyDrive instance) in order to communicate with the cloud storage service). That is because I have no experience with FUSE systems, so I can’t asses the feasibility (or difficulty) of all this. However, as you said, having mounts of different storage services on the system would lead to inconsistent instructions for Bloodhound users. So my question is: is the project useful for Bloodhound then?
Do you have any ideas on what other directions could this project go? If FUSE mounts are not suitable for this project and if using the existing APIs for different cloud storage services is not preferable, then I need to find some other ideas that would be in the scope of the project. Storing attachments on cloud services would be great, however I was wondering whether there are some other features that could be added to Bloodhound (and would be in the scope of the Filesystem Abstraction project)? Thanks, Antonia On 13 March 2014 at 00:31:30, Gary Martin ([email protected]) wrote: On 11/03/14 19:26, Olemis Lang wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is there any existing integration between Bloodhound and Google App >>> Engine, as it would make Google Drive integration easier? >>> >>> >> Considering my description above I do not think GAE will be a target for >> this . AFAICT it's unlikely to run BH on GAE atm . At least the goal of the >> original ticket did not consider running BH on the cloud as a pre-requisite >> . >> >> > ... and the reasons for this are > > - Trac & Bloodhound make heavy use of local file-system > - It's unlikely that GAE data store will be supported atm e.g. NoSQL , > particular joins , ... > - GAE resource and request management policies > Looking at this project again, one of the questions I think I would like to have answered if I were a student is whether filesystem abstraction is easier to consider as an external problem. I mean for unix-like systems at least we could be hoping to deal with FUSE filesystems instead of writing anything specially for Bloodhound. See for example [1] for skydrive, [2] for GAE, [3] for Google Drive, [4] for Dropbox... Also, [5] might give a means to have WebDAV mounts as well. I certainly have not reviewed the quality of any of those and I have also left aside any consideration of licenses on the assumption that these would not be distributed as part of any solution. This may not always leave us with consistent instructions for the wide variety of resources that could be covered and we may not be able to guarantee that the resources could be treated equally on all the available OSs. If that is all acceptable and even preferable, is there a project that can be built out of this? I don't mean to claim that there is no project and my concerns may well be unfounded! Cheers, Gary [1] https://github.com/mk-fg/skydrive-fuse-fs [2] https://code.google.com/p/fuse-gae/ [3] https://github.com/astrada/google-drive-ocamlfuse [4] https://github.com/arekzb/dropfuse [5] https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/davfs2
