very simple datastore reimplementation

Tomeu Vizoso tomeu at
Thu May 8 06:51:37 EDT 2008

On 5/7/08, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Jim Gettys <jg at> wrote:
> >  > Please remember of the need for file names in the on disk structure
> >  >  being human readable.  The need for interoperability (not just with
> >  >  Sugar) is key.  This wasn't quite clear in your discussion.
> >
> >  I was thinking about this at this item:
> >
> >
> >  > - Expose the files with a human readable name, for legacy apps and
> >  > maybe for backups? Using a FUSE plugin?
> >
> >  But I was intending to use the uid in the internal, private file
> >  structure as it will be more robust.
> >
> >  A FUSE plugin may provide a POSIX API similar to the one in olpcfs,
> >  would this be enough to fulfill this concern?
> Well, I like FUSE from my experience with it.
> I'm curious whether you think of this as a quick band-aid or a
> longer-term fix.  Also, the existing olpcfs code seems to provide as
> much functionality as your current datastore, was there a reason you
> didn't build on this?  (This question isn't meant to be
> confrontational: "I wanted to make the simplest possible short-term
> fix" is probably a fine reason.  I'm just curious.)

Yes, I should have made explicit my motivations in the first post of
this thread.

This has been an exercise to clarify in my mind the tradebacks we have
made until now and how much better we could do. It's not supposed to
replace anything, but I wanted to share it with you in case some
interesting discussions may arise.

In any case, I knew it was worth doing because of the stress relief
that it has brought to me ;)

I still need to look at olpcfs in depth, sorry for the delay.



More information about the Devel mailing list