Re: What can a translator do that FUSE can’t?

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Hi Roland, 

> There are two core things about translators vs other systems' filesystems:

> 1. passive translators.

These are definitely great, yes! 

> 2. They are naming points for arbitrary RPCs.
> 
>    In FUSE, the only kind of interface available is the filesystem
>    interface.  
> 
>    The Hurd is a generically RPC-based system in a deep way.  Every kind
>    of subsystem in the Hurd universe is contacted via RPCs, with
>    appropriately specialized calls for whatever you want to do.
>    Filesystems (translators) are the standard rendezvous point for
>    finding a receiver for RPCs, but they do not constrain the interface
>    that client and server can use once they've made the rendezvous.

And here comes the core of my question: Which kinds of actions are really hard 
to map on a filesystem interface? Do you know examples for that? 

Are there actions which can’t be represented via a filesystem interface at all? 

Best wishes, 
Erne

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.