On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net>wrote:
> On Sun Dec 15 10:23:13 EST 2013, bl...@mcbride.name wrote: > > > I checked. The following shell script does the trick: > > > > > > # > > mkdir /tmp/acme-$$ > > NAMESPACE=/tmp/acme-$$ acme "$@" > > this is swimming up stream. acme's model is to run 1 copy of acme, > and edit all files in it. many things, such as plumbing, will work > better with 1 copy of acme. > I agree completely. I would, in general, only run one copy because that is all that would generally be needed. However, there are a couple of circumstances where starting more than one copy does make sense. I detail those two cases in my first post in this thread. > > by the way, this limitation is p9p specific. but still it's no > fun to have the same file get plumbed to every acme. > As you can tell by all my posts. All of this is new to me, and I am tring to understand it all. I like what I see so far, and, in fact, I have some ideas that are germinating in my mind. I am planning a future post about it. Focusing on sam & acme, I don't yet understand the plumber except in the most vague respect. Specifically what one can do with the plumber on p9p is unknown to me. On a semi-different note, I understand the great advancement Plan-9 brings to the table with respect to making all operations part of the file system. On the flip side, I do not understand the benefit p9p brings to the table with bind and friends. It is too much of a tack-on IMO. I deeply appreciate native sam & acme, and would appreciate an even more native port of same. And, not to dispriage the true benefits of Plan-9, I would love to see a POSIX implementation of those ideas. (A topic of a future post.) Thanks. Blake > > - erik > >
