On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Roman V. Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The client does not pick. It is part of the automounter's decision.
> And once the server gets picked by the automounter, it is awfully
> convenient that you see the actual mount as part of the namespace.
Folks are talking at cross-purposes here; I think it's a semantics
issue more than anything.
In Plan 9, the automounter would be considered part of the client. In
plan 9, the canonical way to implement an automounter would be with a
filesystem that did it on your behalf; the smarts for all the
replication and so on would be put there. The namespace would be
visible by asking the automounter (which in this environment is
probably a filesystem) what the namespace is.
There's nothing in the environment that prevents it from being
implemented other than time and inclination.
- Dan C.
