Hello, On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:31:33PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 07:14:17PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > [...] named filter there. (Or perhaps filterfs? -- your dice.) > > > > The name should stay ``filter'' because a filter will not publish a > > virtual filesystem. > > I must say that I always thought of "filter" as an internal codename > only; with a proper name yet to be determined...
Yes, I can remember that we haven't yet decided on the final name for the filter translator. By sticking to ``filter'' I am not trying to supersede this decision; there just has to be a name by which to call this translator, so I chose ``filter'' as the most obvious one. I don't think it would be very difficult to rename it once we consider that appropriate. Also, IIRC, the filter is expected to be run via symbolic links and extract the name of the translator to be filtered out from its command line arguments (I mean argv[0]); in this case the real name of the filter is not extremely important, since the final user will rarely use that name. Regards, scolobb
