I don't even concede this goal. In some cases "structured storage"
inside a file is quite reasonable and efficient.
However, I would agree that for some applications that FS-based
structured storage is much better than file-based structured storage.
> I propose the following:
>
> * inheritance of file bodies
What exactly is this?
> * inheritance of stat data
Fine.
> * a syntax based on rdf for writing to files which have inheritance
> (solving this stumbling block was important for me)
What's "rdf"?
> * filters, such that "dirname/..tar" generates a tar file when read,
> and "dirname/..cat" concatenates for read, and
> "filename/..filtername" runs filtername on the file/directory
> filename.
NO! This is a terrible idea. The low-level tools *must* provide raw
access. This higher-level grouping of data belongs in the GUI.
> * overloading directory names so that if they are opened as files they are
> files, and if accessed as directories they are directories.
Again, NO!
> All of these features are valuable in and of themselves.
I strongly disagree. Some of them are good, some of them are not.
Regards,
Richard....
-
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/