Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!xadmx!rbj@dsys.icst.nbs.gov
From: rbj@dsys.icst.nbs.gov (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Symbolic links and RFS
Message-ID: <19729@adm.BRL.MIL>
Date: 23 May 89 18:04:53 GMT
Sender: news@adm.BRL.MIL
Lines: 32

? From: Barry Shein <bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu>

? The easiest way to do this would be to have a file type which is
? actually a program which promises to produce a string for namei.

? Accessing the inode fires up the program and waits for the resultant
? string which specifies the rest of the path to use.

Interesting, but this just repackages the problem. On which machine
do you execute the program. It would seem to have to be the target
machine, or else you'd need multiple versions of that program.

Another solution would be to allow the pathname to contain a host
as part of its name: foo -> bar:/path/name.

Ultimately, I think the thing to do is to force a specific syntax
for a uniform file system, rather than allowing generalized mounts.
So rather than allowing a mounting of server:/usr/man on /usr/man,
/usr/man would have to be a symbolic link to server:/usr/man.

I love symbolic links and will defend them to my death, but I'm
beginning to believe in Doug Gwyn's reservations about them.

? 	-Barry Shein, Software Tool & Die

? There's nothing more terrifying to hardware vendors than
? satisfied customers.

So Barry, what happened with Encore?

	Root Boy Jim is what I am
	Are you what you are or what?