Re: [securenfs-devel] What's next?

[Nathan Y. <na...@yo...>]

David Wolff wrote:

> Quick question, what are we going to call the client?  'mount.snfs'?
>
> The server, I'm assuming will be called snfsd?

Yup, and Yup ;-) Unless there are other ideas?  These do seem to match 
the *nix convention.

> I think we should also revisit the data structure for holding tokens,
> IPs, and etc... on the server side.

Oh yeah!  Forgot hehe, lets put this at the top of the list.

>> How would you all like to proceed?  Should we meet again to do some 
>> of this? or is it well enough understood/discussed to allow for 
>> splitting it up and tackling it via email/individually?
>
> I think that we should probably write a test of our threading model
> first.  If there is a problem with that design, then we may need to
> modify things.

Good thought.

> As far as shelling out the code, I suggest that we get together to
> do this.  Each thing is interconnected so it would be difficult to
> assign jobs, unless someone wants to come up with a design for all
> three!  :)

Ditto, when should we meet?  Is thursday still a good day for everyone? 
 I think going over the datastructure, then a rough sketch of the server 
classes (at least pertaining to the threads) would be a good idea.  Then 
we can put together a sample of the thread code and see how it works 
through simulation.

Nate