> This approach seems to be flawed on two accounts: > 1. it forces the server to resolve symlinks and special > nodes, without an option for the client to do the same. > That prevents cross-tree symlinks and nodes as the > points of rendezvous *on the client*. IOW, the following > will not work: > $ mknod <imported FS>/test p > $ echo test >> <imported FS>/test & > cat <imported FS>/test > I can buy a point of view that reading on a node that happens > to be a character device should really bring the data from > the remote server's device attached to that node. However, > that point of view is much more difficult to sell for > FIFOs. > > 2. It doesn't let manipulate these special files. IOW, > readlink(2) fails and so does mknod(2)/symlink(2).
operations like these (symlink, readlink, lock, etc.) that only have significance at the extremities should not worry the transit relays. that was the reason for Text/Rext proposal. regardless, interpretation of the ops in a hetergeneous environment will be a problem.
