Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jul 1999 10:57:14 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: I think I was badly misunderstood, it's all optional |
| |
Hans Reiser writes: > > If you don't create a file with the same name as the directory, and set > it to inherit the body of the files in the directory, and modify all of > the files to inherit the stat data of the directory (I'll not specify > how inheritance gets turned on, I need to think about several > alternatives some more, I like the loic@ceic.com /fscontrol idea > though...), and you don't read/write to files that begin with ".." in the > filename without first creating them (creating a file with the same name > as the filter overrides the filter), then you remain blissfully unaware > of these changes. You are welcome to suggest a better prefix than ".." > for me to give special meaning to it. > > Did you really think I would make it somehow mandatory? No wonder you > guys were in a tizzy....
If you could clarify: suppose I had an albod (written by KWord or whatever). Will I still be able to use my existing tools such that the directory appears as a directory (i.e. for stat() and open() purposes)?
Another question, since it hasn't been made clear to me: which problem(s) are you trying to solve by adding new semantics for directories? I'm assuming the new semantics are that read(2)ing a directory yields the "default" data fork (is this assumption correct?).
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/
| |