Hi, On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:48:47PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 02:20:41AM +0000, Da Zheng wrote:
> > so maybe it is better to give up the idea that the directory where > > eth-multiplexer sits is the place to show the status of devices and > > allow the client to operate the device file just like the normal > > file. for example, before accessing the device, the client has to > > create a device with "touch eth0" and afterwards, destroy it with > > "rm eth0". > > I already considered such a possibility: allow explicitely creating > static devices *in addition* to the dynamic ones... Though I wonder > whether in this case it wouldn't be better simply to set up devnode > instances explicitely. > > In any case, I want to keep the dynamic nodes -- it's just much more > convenient. > > Without dynamic devices, we would need a way to store the device > configuration permanently, so that we don't need to explicitely set it > up before launching pfinet. This is possible, but I'm not sure whether > it is really desirable... I thought more about it, and realized that perhaps storing the configuration permanently is not such a bad idea after all -- it is closely related to something I have considered in other contexts in the past: namely permanently storing translator hierarchies. I would like to talk about that. Can you make it to the meeting this friday? (It is rather urgent, as I'm considering making a GSoC task out of it...) -antrik-
