> Richard Gooch wrote:
> > Secondly, we haven't seen a convincining argument as to why putting a
> > FS into a file provides a significant benefit.
>
> You know, you're right...
>
> It is said that editing _huge_ files where only small part changes is
> really slow (if you move things in the file) or really inefficient (if
> you leave gaping holes like MS Word "Quick Save").
>
> This apparently happens when you edit compound documents, like the
> component-based KOffice documents (containing a figure which contains a
> spreadsheet which contains a database etc.)
>
> A fair point, though I haven't seen a convincing argument why a plain
> old directory isn't adequate for holding a compound document.
>
> -- Jamie
I think the only serious weakness of the plain old directory is the one
NextStep has - lack of discipline. Anyone can put irrelevant files in the
document directory, and make a mess. A slight modification of the file
system, so that only component files for the document can be
created/modified/deleted in the document directory, sounds a good idea to me.
I think the difficulty could be devising a solution that imposes such
discipline, but still lets the directory be tar'ed, untar'ed, and so on for
easy transmission.
Steve
-
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/