From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Dec 16 05:43:36 1996
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id FAA01176
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:43:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from palrel1.hp.com (palrel1.hp.com [15.253.72.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id FAA01165
          for <freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:43:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fakir.india.hp.com (fakir.india.hp.com [15.10.40.3]) by palrel1.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA02019; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost by fakir.india.hp.com with SMTP
	(1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA106675713; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:15:13 +0500
Message-Id: <199612161415.AA106675713@fakir.india.hp.com>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Heidemann Framework integration (Re: Other filesystems under FreeBSD)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 15 Dec 1996 15:11:35 MST."
             <199612152211.PAA24071@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:15:13 +0500
From: A JOSEPH KOSHY <koshy@india.hp.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


>>>> "tl" == "Terry Lambert" <terry@lambert.org> said:

tl> FreeBSD is well suited to other file systems.  What I was discussing
tl> was a number of small changes to the mechanism to seperate the
tl> implementation from the instantiation.  Basically, I wanted to be
tl> able to simplify the code I needed to write to write a new FS, even
tl> more than it is already simplified over that for Linux.  This is not
tl> the same thing as the code being impossible without the changes,
tl> only "more difficult than it would be in Terry's ideal world".

Do we have any plans of integrating the Heidemann framework more completely
into the 3.0 development tree?

IMO this would be a good idea.  

Koshy