The proper hierarchy is:
IFilesystemNode
+IFileNode
++IMutableFileNode
++IImmutableFileNode
+IDirectoryNode
Also expand test_client.py (NodeMaker) to hit all IFilesystemNode types.
* stop caching most_recent_size in dirnode, rely upon backing filenode for it
* start caching most_recent_size in MutableFileNode
* return None when you don't know, not "?"
* only render None as "?" in the web "more info" page
* add get_size/get_current_size to UnknownNode
* change t=mkdir-with-children to not use multipart/form encoding. Instead,
the request body is all JSON. t=mkdir-immutable uses this format too.
* make nodemaker.create_immutable_dirnode() get convergence from SecretHolder,
but let callers override it
* raise NotDeepImmutableError instead of using assert()
* add mutable= argument to DirectoryNode.create_subdirectory(), default True
* "cap" means a python instance which encapsulates a filecap/dircap (uri.py)
* "uri" means a string with a "URI:" prefix
* FileNode instances are created with (and retain) a cap instance, and
generate uri strings on demand
* .get_cap/get_readcap/get_verifycap/get_repaircap return cap instances
* .get_uri/get_readonly_uri return uri strings
* add filenode.download_to_filename() for control.py, should find a better way
* use MutableFileNode.init_from_cap, not .init_from_uri
* directory URI instances: use get_filenode_cap, not get_filenode_uri
* update/cleanup bench_dirnode.py to match, add Makefile target to run it
This is safer: in the earlier API, an old webapi server would silently ignore
the initial children, and clients trying to set them would have to fetch the
newly-created directory to discover the incompatibility. In the new API,
clients using t=mkdir-with-children against an old webapi server will get a
clear error.
instead of creating an empty file and then adding the children later.
This should speed up mkdir(initial_children) considerably, removing two
roundtrips and an entire read-modify-write cycle, probably bringing it down
to a single roundtrip. A quick test (against the volunteergrid) suggests a
30% speedup.
test_dirnode: add new tests to enforce the restrictions that interfaces.py
claims for create_new_mutable_directory(): no UnknownNodes, metadata dicts
interfaces.py: define INodeMaker, document argument values, change
create_new_mutable_directory() to take dict-of-nodes. Change
dirnode.set_nodes() and dirnode.create_subdirectory() too.
nodemaker.py: use INodeMaker, update create_new_mutable_directory()
client.py: have create_dirnode() delegate initial_children= to nodemaker
dirnode.py (Adder): take dict-of-nodes instead of list-of-nodes, which
updates set_nodes() and create_subdirectory()
web/common.py (convert_initial_children_json): create dict-of-nodes
web/directory.py: same
web/unlinked.py: same
test_dirnode.py: update tests to match
invoked with the new MutableFileNode and is supposed to return the initial
contents. This can be used by e.g. a new dirnode which needs the filenode's
writekey to encrypt its initial children.
create_mutable_file() still accepts a bytestring too, or None for an empty
file.
I would prefer to have just source code, or indications of what 3rd-party packages are required, under revision control, and have the build process generate o
r acquire the binaries as needed. Also, having these in our release tarballs is interfering with getting Tahoe-LAFS uploaded into Ubuntu Karmic. (Technicall
y, they would accept binary modules as long as they came with the accompanying source so that they could satisfy their obligations under GPL2+ and TGPPL1+, bu
t it is easier for now to remove the binaries from the source tree.)
In this case, the binaries are from the tahoe-w32-client project: http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe-w32-client , from which you can also get the source.
I would prefer to have just source code, or indications of what 3rd-party packages are required, under revision control, and have the build process generate or acquire the binaries as needed. Also, having these in our release tarballs is interfering with getting Tahoe-LAFS uploaded into Ubuntu Karmic. (Technically, they would accept binary modules as long as they came with the accompanying source so that they could satisfy their obligations under GPL2+ and TGPPL1+, but it is easier for now to remove the binaries from the source tree.)
In this case, these modules come from the MacFUSE project: http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/
We need to carefully document the licence of figleaf in order to get Tahoe-LAFS into Ubuntu Karmic Koala. However, figleaf isn't really a part of Tahoe-LAFS per se -- this is just a "convenience copy" of a development tool. The quickest way to make Tahoe-LAFS acceptable for Karmic then, is to remove figleaf from the Tahoe-LAFS tarball itself. People who want to run figleaf on Tahoe-LAFS (as everyone should want) can install figleaf themselves. I haven't tested this -- there may be incompatibilities between upstream figleaf and the copy that we had here...
