features in samba 3.alpha (VFS)

[David Collier-Brown]

 On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Tim Potter wrote:
[assuming I've got the quoting right!]
> We didn't progress past the argument stage of stackable vfs modules.  (-:
> I think the consensus was that it was too hard to figure out the 
> semantics of how it would work.

	Well, in principle they're stackable, but we
	don't have a mechanism for stacking them!
	Tim and I were the discussants, when trying
	to figure out how to document them.
	
 
David Lee <t.d.lee at durham.ac.uk> wrote
> Semantics?  Might a useful starting-point be the model used by PAM
> (Pluggable Authentication Modules) with its "requisite, required,
> optional, sufficient" configuration options etc.  (Sure, we may well find
> reasons why that is insufficient, but it may at least get our thinking
> started...)
	
 	And that sounds good... the equivalents are something like:
	requisite	you must pass through this layer
	required	?
	optional	you need not go here
	sufficient	you don't need any more layers

	In a stacking architecture, this sounds  more than
	 sufficient...

 
> So I'd like to encourage those members of the Samba team who are thinking
> about VFS to consider whether we can, somehow, support multiple VFS layers
> per share.

-- 
David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify 
Americas Customer Engineering, | some people and astonish the rest.
SunPS Integration Services.    |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849                 | davecb at canada.sun.com