This has been an interesting conversation to read. Thanks, Chimpy, David-Sarah, and James.
It sounds like this is one of the "deep" ways that the design of Octavia differs from Tahoe-LAFS. I would be interested in how people use Octavia in practice. (I understand that it is currently at a very early stage of development.) I'm also interested in other ways that the design of Octavia differs from that of Tahoe-LAFS. I must confess I don't understand how it would be possible to implement James's suggestion for a tree-shaped directory structure. I suppose it would require that your client be on the lookout for cycles or converging links that had been created by a buggy or malicious client or by some sort of accident caused by partition, and raise an error if one is detected. I suppose this would be analogous to the way that fsck looks for such problems in local filesystems. Hm, I also suppose that we'll need to implement something like this sort of detection anyway in order to facilitate deep-copying between Tahoe-LAFS which has arbitrary graph structure and local filesystems which have (various) limitations on the structure: #104, #641, #850. Regards, Zooko http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/104# does cp -r work as expected? http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/641# tahoe backup should be able to backup symlinks http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/850# tahoe backup loops on recursive links _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
