On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:19:38PM -0800, Phillip Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 03:06:29PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
..
> > What exactly did you want to do with the library?
>
>
> I've been a real big proponent of rsync here and I've used it all over
> the place to rip the use of NFS out of production. I've even gone so
> far as to have an rexec command that uses rsync to run a command 'over
> rsync'. Ie, instead of running a program like "command -options" you
> run it as "host::module/command -options" and it handles pulling down
> the program and caching it locally and what have you. I also pull over
> configuration files in a similar manner.
>
> What I had an idea to do was take this a step further and have the
> ability to say ropen(), and create a filehandle from within a program
> that was linked to rsyncd. Instead of having a config file local or
> reading it over NFS or pulling the entire thing local with the rsync
> client and then reading it (what I currently do), the file handle would
> have direct access to the rsyncd.
>
> This would just remove the necessicity of calling the rsync program
> itself to accomplish this. The rsyncd protocol might not be robust
> enough to handle this but I thought it was worth a shot to try. This
> is why I am asking. :-)
I think you'll be better off just doing a fork/exec of the standard rsync
client from within ropen(). Some people are looking into rewriting rsync
("version 3.0") which may make it easier to link parts of it with other
programs, but that's still a long way away.
- Dave Dykstra
