Re: storeGet() -> storeGetPublic() ?

perhaps provide a set of routines that allow a fs to build a in memory index, then something like reiserFS could optionally pass all
additions/purges through those routines, thus generating a in memory index - and then digest capability. Yes for reiser it's
additional code with no purpose but creating digests, but on the other hand it'd be very modular and thus easy to #define on or off
for the cache administrator to choose...

> Ok, good point. I was planning on having each FS export a cache digest,
> but this may be impractical for some filesystems. Instead, what could
> happen is that each FS *could* export a cache digest, for example the
> reimplementation of ufs/aufs/diskd will require an in-memory index
> anyway, so building a digest from that shouldn't be terribly difficult.
> Something like reiserfs_raw might not be so easy because the index
> is on-disk.
>
> In this way, cache digest building becomes part of the FS rather than
> squid, and if the administrator chooses to use a FS which doesn't build
> a digest then he doesn't get them.
>
> I'm all up for suggestions here. :)
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> --
> Adrian Chadd "Here's five for the cake, and
> <adrian@creative.net.au> five to buy a clue."
> - Ryan, Whatever it Takes
>
Received on Sun Jan 07 2001 - 04:08:58 MST