On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Zooko O'Whielacronx <zoo...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Yeah it might turn out that $FILE_MANAGER <-> Tahoe-LAFS is much > better performing and has nicer behaviour and better features and is > easier to implement than $FILE_MANAGER <-> $FS_INTERFACE <-> > Tahoe-LAFS. (Where FS_INTERFACE is something like FUSE, FTP, SFTP, > WebDAV, ...) > > I like $FILE_MANAGER <-> $FS_INTERFACE <-> Tahoe-LAFS because:
$FILE_MANAGER_X <-> $FS_INTERFACE <-> Tahoe-LAFS $FILE_MANAGER_Y <-> $FS_INTERFACE <-> Tahoe-LAFS $FILE_MANAGER_Z <-> $FS_INTERFACE <-> Tahoe-LAFS Can all be accomplished with a single $FS_INTERFACE (or a small set of $FS_INTERFACEs). I'll take maintaining a single piece of code over maintaining many, and leaving the ugly corpses of orphaned $FILE_MANAGER stubs lying around the landscape. Directly supporting the file manager would lead to some, measurable better performance, but the cost of doing so is huge in comparison. Jody
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@allmydata.org http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
