On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com wrote:
It makes me wonder if we should allow people to add payloads this way too. Is cbfs flexible enough to allow us to have one payload for normal and fallback?
Sure. it's just a name. It's all in how you walk the file system.
You're right. The correct question was something more along the lines of "How are we going to make it intuitive for people to be able to use the same payload for multiple images?"
Are we going to always search for fallback/foo if we can't find normal/foo? What about /foo?
I think it should be implemented once somewhere so that it's consistent.
The cbfs types are meant to be extended as needed. A type for fallback is a good idea. CBFS_TYPE_STAGE_FALLBACK? I don't think that we are using the stage concept yet but I think that it still fits v2. I wonder if the failover/fallback stuff can be cleaned up to be more like v3?
Marc