Hello, On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 02:08:24PM +1000, William Leslie wrote: > 2009/9/25 Sergiu Ivanov <[email protected]>: > > I wonder whether it is reasonable to try FUSE to implement > > translators. I've never been much into FUSE, but the Wikipedia > > article says that ``FUSE is particularly useful for writing virtual > > file systems'', which, AIUI, is precisely the matter of interest for > > most translators. (At least FUSE filesystems like GmailFS, > > WikipediaFS, archivemount sound a lot like actual translator names.) > > Afraid not. Hurd translators are far more general. With FUSE you > provide file or directory like APIs, with HurdIO you can provide any > API. The more common subset of hurdio (the file and directory APIs) > might be portable to fuse, however.
I must confess that I don't have the knowledge to understand what specifically you are referring to by the term ``HurdIO'', but it did occur to me that Hurd translators are more general (that's why I wrote ``*most* translators'' :-) ). However, I'm actually thinking of something like a ``prototype version'' whose main purpose would be introducing the concept of translators to a wider public and cultivating interest in the environment where the concept originated from -- the Hurd :-) BTW, if the existing FUSE filesystem are much similar to translators, this ``prototype version'' already exists. And I think I can remember somebody from the Hurd community having tried to show the advantage of the Hurd way and ran into an attitude like: ``Why do we need a Hurd, if we already have FUSE?'' :-( Regards, scolobb
