[Mono-dev] Announce: Mono.Fuse (+ Required Mono.Posix Changes)

[Jonathan Pryor]

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 07:27 +0200, pablosantosluac wrote:
> So, let's say I want to develop a filesystem to be integrated with our 
> software: should I use SULF or should I wait for Mono.Fuse?

SULF is dead (if I'm interpreting Valient Gough's comments correctly).
It's been replaced by fusewrapper: 

	http://arg0.net/darcs/fusewrapper

fusewrapper's C# interface is a virtual copy of FUSE's low-level
interface.  To see what this means, compare the FUSE low-level
hello_ll.c program with the "high" level hello.c program:

http://fuse.cvs.sourceforge.net/fuse/fuse/example/hello_ll.c?revision=1.11&view=markup
http://fuse.cvs.sourceforge.net/fuse/fuse/example/hello.c?revision=1.18&view=markup

I personally find the low-level interface to be as appealing as manually
handling WM_* messages in a System.Windows.Forms app...

fusewrapper does have a higher-level interface which is very similar to
the previous SULF library, however it's written in Nemerle (see the
fusewrapper/nemerle/Sulf directory within a fusewrapper darcs checkout).

So you basically have four choices:

1. Use Sulf, even though it's been abandoned (it's darcs repo is
inaccessible, so you'd have to go with the previous 0.3 tarball).
(Furthermore, I've had no luck building & installing the 0.3 tarball,
but your mileage may vary.)

2. Use fusewrapper's low-level C# interface.

3. Use Nemerle and fusewrapper's high-level Sulf interface.

4. Wait for Mono.Fuse.  (Actually, you'd be waiting for the Mono.Fuse
dependencies within Mono.Posix to be committed, then either use svn-HEAD
or wait for 1.1.18 to use a separate Mono.Fuse tarball.  Furthermore, I
have no idea when the Mono.Posix dependencies will get committed; it
depends on when I get approval, which may require changes...)

 - Jon