On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Tom Keiser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Long has it been the case that people have wanted the ability to create
>> special devices and sockets in AFS, yet due to the non-portability of these
>> we haven't been able to do it.
>>
>> Can I suggest we consider
>> 1) allowing these to be created but not sent to the server
>> 2) if created locally they would cover a later file of the same name if one
>> is created
>> 3) when disconnected AFS persists data across reboots, it be used to persist
>> this data on the local client.
>> 4) until then, and even then for memcache, a config file which is updated as
>> these are created and removed, and reread at AFS start to recreate state.
>>
>
> This is an interesting concept. I do have two small concerns:
>
> 1) to some degree, the local filename overlay semantics violate the
> principle of least surprise; and
so does 'can't create a socket'
> 2) it should be done in such a manner that any envisioned support for
> distributed sockets/named pipes not be precluded.
indeed. I have no easy answer
there_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
