hint: the simpliest of the tcp file system protocols? - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on hint: the simpliest of the tcp file system protocols? - TCP-IP ; hello maybe i'm a bit offtopic, if so please reroute me to the right group... i would like to develop a very simple (or maybe i should say "quickest in development time", probably using java or .net) network file server ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: hint: the simpliest of the tcp file system protocols?

  1. hint: the simpliest of the tcp file system protocols?

    hello

    maybe i'm a bit offtopic, if so please reroute me to the right
    group...

    i would like to develop a very simple (or maybe i should say "quickest
    in development time", probably using java or .net) network file server
    that can be used cross-platform (meaning windows and linux, possibly
    macos x) as a... file system (mounted, etc.).

    i may ditch everything including security, i could limit
    authentication on ip numbers to ease development, the things that
    really matter to me are basic file and directory operations, maybe (if
    possible) locking.

    tcp connection transport would be great

    given these restraints and priorities, is (web)dav the best option or
    are there better options?

    thank you in advance
    gst

  2. Re: hint: the simpliest of the tcp file system protocols?

    On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:45:22 -0800, gst wrote:

    > hello
    >
    > maybe i'm a bit offtopic, if so please reroute me to the right group...
    >
    > i would like to develop a very simple (or maybe i should say "quickest
    > in development time", probably using java or .net) network file server
    > that can be used cross-platform (meaning windows and linux, possibly
    > macos x) as a... file system (mounted, etc.).


    Samba.

    M4

  3. Re: hint: the simpliest of the tcp file system protocols?

    On Jan 9, 8:42 pm, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:45:22 -0800, gst wrote:
    > > i would like to develop a very simple (or maybe i should say "quickest
    > > in development time", probably using java or .net) network file server

    > Samba.


    Hello, thanks for your prompt reply.

    I wasn't clear in the first post: I have to clarify that

    - what i would like to do is exposing a sort of not-really-filesystem
    "database" through a plain-old-fossil-hierarchical-filesystem in order
    to be able to access from usual software through regular filesystem
    api. thus it has to be a custom implementation since i have to
    translate filesystem calls to real operations on the db.

    - even if i could theoretically modify samba sources, actually i'm not
    in the position of having the freedom of tying myself for life on
    installing a specific native implementation either on windows or
    linux.

    thus the question becomes: is nbt easier to implement than webdav?

    thanks again, sorry for not being clear the first time.

  4. Re: hint: the simpliest of the tcp file system protocols?

    On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:14:17 -0800, gst wrote:

    > On Jan 9, 8:42 pm, Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    >> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:45:22 -0800, gst wrote:
    >> > i would like to develop a very simple (or maybe i should say
    >> > "quickest in development time", probably using java or .net) network
    >> > file server

    >> Samba.

    >
    > Hello, thanks for your prompt reply.
    >
    > I wasn't clear in the first post: I have to clarify that
    >
    > - what i would like to do is exposing a sort of not-really-filesystem
    > "database" through a plain-old-fossil-hierarchical-filesystem in order
    > to be able to access from usual software through regular filesystem api.
    > thus it has to be a custom implementation since i have to translate
    > filesystem calls to real operations on the db.


    OK. If I assume your server can be tied to a particular platform but your
    clients can be almost anything, I would suggest Fuse on Linux and export
    the resulting filesystem. Butt Fuse does not allow exporting by default,
    so I'm not sure if this will work.

    >
    > - even if i could theoretically modify samba sources, actually i'm not
    > in the position of having the freedom of tying myself for life on
    > installing a specific native implementation either on windows or linux.
    >
    > thus the question becomes: is nbt easier to implement than webdav?
    >
    > thanks again, sorry for not being clear the first time.


    Webdav is way easier I think and is clearly another good solution.

    M4

+ Reply to Thread