Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> Michael Rothwell wrote:
> > Rogier Wolff wrote:
> >
> > > However, when
> > >
> > > myfile
> > >
> > > starts to refer both to a file and a directory, that's when I get
> > > upset.
> >
> >
> > It's not a file and a directory. It's a file with named streams.
>
> Fine. Then it's a file with named streams.
>
> If both
>
> myfile
>
> and
>
> myfile/resource
>
> become valid strings to pass to the "open" syscall then I get upset.
Why? Programs that don't use streams won't ever try to do it, a
nd won't even query to see if there _are_ streams on a file.
> Fine now I'm using your terminology. Does that help you understand
> what I'm trying to say? I think you're just playing dumb. That doesn't
> help a discussion.
I'm not playing dumb. It seems like people making the
"implement as directories" arguments actually don't want
any streams support at all. I'm arguing honestly: I want
streams support for filesystems that use them. I don't
want to break existing programs to get it. I think a
namespace extension is the proper way to do it. I
_think_ I understand what you're trying to say, and
it's this:
"streams are stupid and I don't want linux to support them"
Please correct me if I am wrong. I am _not_ just trying to flame you.
> The reason I get upset is that old utilities like "tar" will no longer
> work. Too many things won't work. So, my suggestion is to stay away
> from that design.
Tar can work. Its format supports EAs. The tools may not, but that's
fixable.
-M
-
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 - 21:00:33 EST