Quoth Alyssa M via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>:
> I wondering whether it would be better to have a single control
> file per directory and some kind of sub-protocol going through it.
It's nice to see I'm not the only one doing something of the kind. I
went with something that seems simpler to me, but it's subjective. I
use a single control file at the root (/ctl) and a helper rc script
(m) to implement non-9P commands that I use both in Linux and Plan
9. (I don't use .L but I think the approach would still work.) For
example, I say
% pwd
/mnt/weirdfs/src
% m mv foo bar/baz/
This will detect if I'm within the mounted weird fs and output other
commands that I can pipe to rc, e.g.,
% echo rename src/foo src/bar/baz/foo >/weird/fs/ctl
which when does the rename just using links and not copying and
removing data (as would be the case with dircp and rm).
(Obviously if you use mv on Linux it would still achieve the same
result but copying and removing all the data.) These “advanced”
commands I use very little often so I don't mind not implementing .L
in my case.
Possibly a better way would be to use another side channel to talk
to the fs instead of the control file, like when you use con(1) with
/srv/cwfs.cmd but I haven't had reason to invest time in this since
the ctl works.
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T0f2c2342a05a3d6e-M582a426fecaa24801244706e
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
