jas88@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> > This introduces one new thing which is really incompatible with
> > POSIX filesystems, a file that can also act as a directory.
>
> That's absolutely horrible.
>
> > What is the basic reason why this directory can't live in a special
> > directory called ".fork"? So instead of doing "cd file-with-forks"
> > one does "cd .fork/file-with-forks"?
>
> That's also horrible.
It might be horrible, but how else are you going to solve it? As
Linus has said, NTFS is not POSIX compatible anyway, but it has to be
supported somehow.
> BTW: What do you do if there's a real directory called ".fork"? Or a
> file?
Tough luck, on NTFS file systems the name ".fork" is reserved.
> You also still have the original problem of naming the forks!
>
> If I create "foo" and "bar", both with a fork called "splat", what tree do
> I get? This one:
>
> foo
> bar
> .fork/foo:splat
> .fork/bar:splat
Almost, with / instead of : as the separator.
bash$ ls -R .fork
.fork:
total 8
drwxrwxr-x 3 wingel wingel 4096 Aug 14 11:48 foo
drwxrwxr-x 3 wingel wingel 4096 Aug 14 11:49 bar
./fork/foo:
total 160
-rw-rw-r-- 1 wingel wingel 154270 Aug 11 15:31 splat
./fork/bar:
total 160
-rw-rw-r-- 1 wingel wingel 154270 Aug 11 15:31 splat
> > That would work on ext2, NFS or any POSIX like filesystem.
>
> It might possibly work, but it would leave a mess on the keyboard. Don't
> do it.
It's how AppleShare has been done with Netatalk for a long time.
/Christer
-- "Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:32 EST