Re: store module abstractions

Robert Collins wrote:

> I don't see that as a problem. I'm not suggesting that all storefs
> level layers use the third layer. As an analogy, if you choose to
> you can write a storefs module now that ignore the replacement
> policy module and implements its own. This might make sense with COSS
> for instance if FIFO is all you can efficiently support.

I see it as a problem, as you might well end up with only a few of the
FS:es actually using that layer, while the others can't because of other
needs, requirements of efficiency reasons.

> > My preference at the moment is a very thin layer implementing store* calls -
> > storeDirRebuild, storeRead, storeWrite, storeUnlink, etc. - and then

> Right. That sounds like what i'm talking about. That layer is async itself.
> It *should not* intergace to reiser/coss IMO. They don't have process's analagous to dirRebuild do they?

Which makes it realistic to make these more like libraries than layers.

/Henrik
Received on Sun Feb 18 2001 - 01:48:32 MST