From owner-freebsd-current Fri Aug 23 10:24:14 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA15051 for current-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA15040; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA16054; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:13:37 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199608231713.KAA16054@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Thoughts on implementation of communications protocols To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:13:37 -0700 (MST) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, sos@FreeBSD.org, pst@jnx.com In-Reply-To: from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Aug 23, 96 10:12:41 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I like the suggestion of passing along a "dead/alive" tag with each message. > That way accounting routines can still get a chance at things which a > filter has blocked. Everyone else would just pass it along until it gets to > a protocol switching node which shunts it to the "bit bucket". > > - - - - - > > Now, here's a scary thought... Would the same kind of mechanism also work > for file systems? It would certainly make it easy to handle encrypted file > systems and foreign FS structures. We could call it "VFS". 8-) 8-0 8-) 8-P We already have a stacking system for the FS that does what you want; it just can't collapse stacks to get the equivalent single-layer implementation. And that's been hacked on already, it's a matter of integration order. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.