Re: file as a directory

[Peter Foldiak]

Hans,
Following the recent discussions on the lists on "file as directory", I
re-read part of your http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html paper (in
sections near "Aggregating Files Can Improve The User Interface To
Them") and realised that you have discussed this issue in quite a lot of
detail already there (see copied below). (Strange though that nobody
referred to it in the discussion! People don't seem to be very good at
reading (and that seems to include me)).

It looks to me that the "file as directory" and "directory as file"
issues are almost identical. What you are saying is that you could
automatically aggregate files in a directory to look like a single file
(you give the example of the /etc/passwd file). I was saying that you
could make a file look like a directory.
Perhaps a better way to think about this is that instead of talking
about directories and files, we just talk about objects. Each object
would have file-type access methods and directory-type access methods.
This has some implications for the syntax. You (in v4.html) suggest
using the /.glued syntax:

/new_syntax_access_path/big_directory_of_small_files/.glued

I think the "object" philosophy would rather imply that the object (or
directory) should have a default glueing method, so when you access the
directory as a file (using read(), for instance)

/new_syntax_access_path/big_directory_of_small_files

would automatically give you the glued file (without having to add the
.glued !) and when you access it as a directory (using readdir(), for
instance), you would get the components listed as a directory.
(I am not sure whether the access method, e.g. read() vs. readdir() is
sufficient to distinguish the meaning. Another way may be putting a "/"
after the objectname to indicate that you want it as a directory.)

If we do this, the applications don't need to know whether they are
dealing with an object consisting of small files, aggregated, or whether
they are looking at a big file with some way of accessing their parts.
If an old application (or user) looks for the /etc/passwd file, it will
still get what it expects without having to know that the file is an
aggregate.

In fact, from the point of view of the file system, it doesn't make much
of a difference, in both cases they map names to keys. The only
difference (as far as I can see) is whether metadata is stored
separately for each component or only once for the objcts. 

If you store metadata only once, then a component could inherit metadata
(such as modification date) from the parent. There should be some way of
telling the file system which bits need their own metadata. But the way
of telling the file system this probably should not be mixed up with the
file naming.

There may be some complications with some parts of files being linked to
a different number of times, so if you remove a hard link from the whole
file, should a component linked from elsewhere be kept or deleted.

Do you think we could leave off the ./glued bit? Would it break too many
things?

 Peter

In http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html Hans Reiser wrote:
> ...
> Aggregating Files Can Improve The User Interface To Them
> Consider the use of emacs on a collection of a thousand small 8-32
byte
> files like you might have if you deconstructed /etc/passwd into small
> files with separable acls for every field. It is more convenient in
> screen real estate, buffer management, and other user interface
> considerations, to operate on them as an aggregation all placed into a
> single buffer rather than as a thousand 8-32 byte buffers.
> 
> 
> How Do We Write Modifications To An Aggregation
> Suppose we create a plugin that aggregates all of the files in a
> directory into a single stream. How does one handle writes to that
> aggregation that change the length of the components of that
> aggregation?
> 
> Richard Stallman pointed out to me that if we separate the aggregated
> files with delimiters, then emacs need not be changed at all to
acquire
> an effective interface for large numbers of small files accessed via
an
> aggregation plugin. If
> /new_syntax_access_path/big_directory_of_small_files/.glued is a
plugin
> that aggregates every file in big_directory_of_small_files with a
> delimiter separating every file within the aggregation, then one can
> simply type emacs
> /new_syntax_access_path/big_directory_of_small_files/.glued, and the
> filesystem has done all the work emacs needs to be effective at this.
> Not a line of emacs needs to be changed.
> 
> One needs to be able to choose different delimiting syntax for
different
> aggregation plugins so that one can, for say the passwd file,
aggregate
> subdirectories into lines, and files within those subdirectories into
> colon separate fields within the line. XML would benefit from yet
other
> delimiter construction rules. (We have been told by Philipp Guehring 
of
> LivingXML.NET  that ReiserFS is higher performance than any database
for
> storing XML, so this issue is not purely theoretical.)
> 
> 
> Aggregation Is Best Implemented As Inheritance
> In summary, to be able to achieve precision in security we need to
have
> inheritance with specifiable delimiters and we need whole file
> inheritance to support ACLs.
> 
> 
> One Plugin Using Delimiters That Resemble sys_reiser4() Syntax
> We provide the infrastructure for your constructing plugins that
> implement arbitrary processing of writes to inheriting files, but we
> also supply one generic inheriting file plugin that intentionally uses
> delimiters very close to the sys_reiser4() syntax. We will document
the
> syntax more fully when that code is working, for now syntax details
are
> in the comments in the file invert.c in the source code. ...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/