[tahoe-dev] Cleanest way to use Tahoe and MinorFs together?

[Rob Meijer]

I wrote this on the cap-talk list ones before, but noone picked up on it
there, so maybe I have more of a response on tahoe-dev.

Looking at Tahoe and my MinorFs project purely from the specs, I am
absolutely amased by the fact that although they both build a 'least
autority' filesystem and both are password capability systems, the set of
specs are so much disjunct. Next to being disjunct however it would seem
that they  would also have the potential to be complementary in some way.

Although, given the amazingly large codebase of Tahoe as compared to my
humble MinorFs project, you might not feel those litle MinorFs scripts
worth your attention, I would like to ask you to have a look at MinorFs,
and if anyone agrees with my observation, to share any ways (preferably
'clean' way) to use MinorFs from Tahoe or Tahoe from MinorFs or any other
construction in order to realy make the specs of Tahoe and MinorFs
complementary in a single instalation.

I noticed in the archives that Jed is active on tahoe-dev.
Jed, given your extreme level of expertice and experience on this matter,
I believe also at a low granularity, and given you aparently are up to
speed on Tahoe, May I ask you if you could possibly spent some small
amounth of time to investigate if and how Tahoe/MinorFs could work
together (and if it is a usefull persue at all).
If others (who don't dismiss MinorFs for its simplicity and size) have any
input on this matter that naturaly also would be very welcome.

One important note for understanding MinorFs as compared to Tahoe (I
myself had a bit of a problem comprehending tahoe for this reason) is that
MinorFs does least authority at the 'pseudo persistent process' level of
granularity, and at the local machine scope , not the 'user' level of
granularity and the 'internet' scope. It is in bridging these levels of
granularity and scope that I feel potential lays.

T.I.A.

Rob J Meijer