Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Timm Murray <hardburn@runbox.com>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: GopherFS implementation questions
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:37:23 -0600
References: <87y9j3fqy7.fsf@complete.org> <20020112191546.A3643@Pflipp>
In-Reply-To: <20020112191546.A3643@Pflipp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <E16PT0p-00047N-00@pluto.runbox.com>
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 12 January 2002 12:15, you wrote:
<>
> All in all, I'm not quite sure if you _can_ represent Gopher in a FS
> structure. It will take some really ugly translation-step hack to say the
> least. Or you should of course be able to use Windows-like symlinking,
> which work non-transparently, just as you'd need it.
>
> And mind you, I haven't even fought the battle of Gopher+ yet... (I see
> material for a sequel here :-/)

I've been thinking about having a full-fledged Unix filesystem over Gopher.  
Something that would include uids/gids and could be used as a replacement for 
NFS.  This would require Gopher+, though, and you couldn't drop in an 
existing Gopher+ server for use as the main file server (though it probably 
wouldn't need too much modification).

The nice thing about using Gopher+ as a filesysem is that you can have 
full-fledged MIME types, not just relying on the filename extention.

- -- 
X windows:  A mistake carried out to perfection.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjxAgmYACgkQqpueKcacfLT3sgCgjZ3owet1DC0VWN7ub05c5/ik
RW8An0OrJMH0pu6gXLUUS46QSoy304gR
=pEc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----