On 13 Feb 2001, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:19:38PM -0800, Phillip Moore wrote:
> > 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.
Another thing we might do as part of 3.0 is to build it into
gnome-vfs. That might even be possible with the current application
for simple commands, but the current network protocol is kind of ugly,
so a full library implementation might have ot wait for a while.
Don't let me discourage you from writing (and GPL'ing) it yourself,
though. :-)
--
Martin Pool, Human Resource
Linuxcare. Inc. +61 2 6262 8990
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://linuxcare.com.au/
Linuxcare. Putting Open Source to work.
