[9fans] control-F completion question - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] control-F completion question - Plan9 ; Hello everybody! If I understand it right ^f (or an 'ins' key) are taken care of by rio and thus the success of completion is essentially dependent on the namespace rio is using. This namespace is created when rio is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: [9fans] control-F completion question

  1. [9fans] control-F completion question

    Hello everybody!

    If I understand it right ^f (or an 'ins' key) are taken care of by rio and
    thus the success of completion is essentially dependent on the namespace rio
    is using. This namespace is created when rio is started, usually right after
    a computer start. When the namespaces of individual windows are changed, e.
    g. by binding some remote filesystems, ^f can't handle those new files
    (since the rio namespace stays intact). Even though I may understand the
    reason (i.e. what I have just said) I find it rather irritating, having
    maybe the whole space I work with out of reach of ^f. Is there any help with
    that? Couldn't it be somehow achieved that ^f worked 'better'? (Not saying
    rc should take care of it, it probably should not; but what about if it were
    somehow connected with the individual windows? -- I don't know, it may not
    be possible, just asking. Having to always write 'lc' is somewhat ...).
    Starting a bunch of several rios can help it. But is that a right way to
    go?

    Thanks for answers.
    Ruda


  2. Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

    i sometimes wonder whether the ^F completion stuff wasn't left this
    way on purpose, as if to illustrate the futility of (essentially) a
    single-node solution in the presence of distributed environments.

    to solve what you perceive to be a problem you must ask yourself: what
    is the one thing that is fully aware of the current namespace? it's
    obviously not rio: it simply juggles windows with shells in them. is
    it the shell? putting the completion in the shell itself would work
    for plain terminals, but wouldn't work for rio. is it the kernel?
    would you bother adding to the kernel something as silly as command
    completion? how about completing across a network?

    all difficult questions for a silly problem

    On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
    > Hello everybody!
    >
    > If I understand it right ^f (or an 'ins' key) are taken care of by rio and
    > thus the success of completion is essentially dependent on the namespace rio
    > is using. This namespace is created when rio is started, usually right after
    > a computer start. When the namespaces of individual windows are changed, e.
    > g. by binding some remote filesystems, ^f can't handle those new files
    > (since the rio namespace stays intact). Even though I may understand the
    > reason (i.e. what I have just said) I find it rather irritating, having
    > maybe the whole space I work with out of reach of ^f. Is there any help with
    > that? Couldn't it be somehow achieved that ^f worked 'better'? (Not saying
    > rc should take care of it, it probably should not; but what about if it were
    > somehow connected with the individual windows? -- I don't know, it may not
    > be possible, just asking. Having to always write 'lc' is somewhat ...).
    > Starting a bunch of several rios can help it. But is that a right way to
    > go?
    >
    > Thanks for answers.
    > Ruda
    >



  3. Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

    On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 06:39:17PM +0200, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
    > Hello everybody!
    >
    > If I understand it right ^f (or an 'ins' key) are taken care of by rio and
    > thus the success of completion is essentially dependent on the namespace rio
    > is using. This namespace is created when rio is started, usually right after
    > a computer start. When the namespaces of individual windows are changed, e.
    > g. by binding some remote filesystems, ^f can't handle those new files
    > (since the rio namespace stays intact). Even though I may understand the
    > reason (i.e. what I have just said) I find it rather irritating, having
    > maybe the whole space I work with out of reach of ^f. Is there any help with
    > that? Couldn't it be somehow achieved that ^f worked 'better'? (Not saying
    > rc should take care of it, it probably should not; but what about if it were
    > somehow connected with the individual windows? -- I don't know, it may not
    > be possible, just asking. Having to always write 'lc' is somewhat ...).
    > Starting a bunch of several rios can help it. But is that a right way to
    > go?
    >
    > Thanks for answers.
    > Ruda


    This was the issue that prompted my experimental work for cross-namespace
    visibility (see
    https://wiki.ietfng.org/pub/Plan9/Ke...aceWalkProject
    if you're curious). This experiment is probably not the Right Way to do
    this, but it may be food for thought.

    Another alternative would be to spawn an exportfs "next to" the rc inside
    the window, and have rio use that to find completions. Not terribly
    pleasant, but might be workable.

    --nwf;

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjmTh8ACgkQTeQabvr9Tc9AlACfSe83nKtsdE LmgnvkziU3f4wj
    34EAnRRHlQOGnBZf5tFMrK2KzSsPQcdz
    =DUZD
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  4. Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

    2008/10/3 andrey mirtchovski

    > i sometimes wonder whether the ^F completion stuff wasn't left this
    > way on purpose, as if to illustrate the futility of (essentially) a
    > single-node solution in the presence of distributed environments.
    >
    > to solve what you perceive to be a problem you must ask yourself: what
    > is the one thing that is fully aware of the current namespace? it's
    > obviously not rio: it simply juggles windows with shells in them. is
    > it the shell? putting the completion in the shell itself would work
    > for plain terminals, but wouldn't work for rio. is it the kernel?
    > would you bother adding to the kernel something as silly as command
    > completion? how about completing across a network?
    >
    > all difficult questions for a silly problem
    >


    I might again be wrong, but I thought the reason why the completion is not
    in the rc is partially thanks to the fact, that rc doesn't know anything you
    type until you press 'enter'. Only rio knows. (But all this is based only on
    my possibly broken opinion...)
    But yes, the best would be (for me and I guess for everybody, since we
    usually speak to rc when we need the completion) to be as close to the rc's
    namespace as possible.
    Correct me, please, if I am completely off the road...

    Ruda


  5. Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

    > Hello everybody!
    >
    > If I understand it right ^f (or an 'ins' key) are taken care of by rio and
    > thus the success of completion is essentially dependent on the namespace rio
    > is using. This namespace is created when rio is started, usually right after
    > a computer start. When the namespaces of individual windows are changed, e.
    > g. by binding some remote filesystems, ^f can't handle those new files
    > (since the rio namespace stays intact). Even though I may understand the
    > reason (i.e. what I have just said) I find it rather irritating, having
    > maybe the whole space I work with out of reach of ^f. Is there any help with
    > that? Couldn't it be somehow achieved that ^f worked 'better'? (Not saying
    > rc should take care of it, it probably should not; but what about if it were
    > somehow connected with the individual windows? -- I don't know, it may not
    > be possible, just asking. Having to always write 'lc' is somewhat ...).
    > Starting a bunch of several rios can help it. But is that a right way to
    > go?
    >
    > Thanks for answers.
    > Ruda


    you can accomplish this simply by using the plumber which,
    by convention, shares a namespace with rio. suppose you
    want insert to work with sources. then plumbing the string
    Local 9fs sources
    will allow insert to wor. alternatively, one might wish
    to import sources with an aan connection before starting
    rio. this works pretty well for me since most of the time
    it's fairly easy to anticipate the stuff you're going to add
    to the namespace.

    - erik



  6. Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

    hola,

    I got the tip from rog's post to affect rio's ns,
    plumber's actually.

    http://9fans.net/archive/2005/02/171

    On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
    >
    >
    > 2008/10/3 andrey mirtchovski
    >>
    >> i sometimes wonder whether the ^F completion stuff wasn't left this
    >> way on purpose, as if to illustrate the futility of (essentially) a
    >> single-node solution in the presence of distributed environments.
    >>
    >> to solve what you perceive to be a problem you must ask yourself: what
    >> is the one thing that is fully aware of the current namespace? it's
    >> obviously not rio: it simply juggles windows with shells in them. is
    >> it the shell? putting the completion in the shell itself would work
    >> for plain terminals, but wouldn't work for rio. is it the kernel?
    >> would you bother adding to the kernel something as silly as command
    >> completion? how about completing across a network?
    >>
    >> all difficult questions for a silly problem

    >
    > I might again be wrong, but I thought the reason why the completion is not
    > in the rc is partially thanks to the fact, that rc doesn't know anything you
    > type until you press 'enter'. Only rio knows. (But all this is based only on
    > my possibly broken opinion...)
    > But yes, the best would be (for me and I guess for everybody, since we
    > usually speak to rc when we need the completion) to be as close to the rc's
    > namespace as possible.
    > Correct me, please, if I am completely off the road...
    >
    > Ruda
    >
    >




    --
    Federico G. Benavento


  7. Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

    > I might again be wrong, but I thought the reason why the completion is not
    > in the rc is partially thanks to the fact, that rc doesn't know anything you
    > type until you press 'enter'. Only rio knows. (But all this is based only on
    > my possibly broken opinion...)
    > But yes, the best would be (for me and I guess for everybody, since we
    > usually speak to rc when we need the completion) to be as close to the rc's
    > namespace as possible.
    > Correct me, please, if I am completely off the road...
    >
    > Ruda


    really? i use completion in the acme tag line more often.

    - erik



  8. Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

    rio does its magic ( expanding filenames) by consulting /dev/wdir,
    thus any way you can keep wdir up to date will allow to work,
    (and the plumber to find files).

    You can even use u9fs (or sftpfs) to connect to a unix box and ssh to
    connect to a remote unix host, and plumb files (or use to expand
    file names), this parses the current directory embedded in the unix
    host's prompt - see rwd(1).

    I have a similar system for accessing windows servers and windows workstations,
    though I use my own server on the workstation rather than openssh.

    -Steve


+ Reply to Thread