Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:33:51 -0400 | From | Michael Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: NTFS-like streams? |
| |
Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Right. And I'm suggesting that an access method can and SHOULD be > designed that works exactly the same on filesystems that support it and > on filesystems that don't.
That seems more or less like not actually supporting streams at all.
> Right. It's not the actual NAMES of the HFS tricks that I'm proposing > to keep. I'm saying that we should try to make something generic which > will allow NTFS named streams and HFS resources to both be accessed in > similar ways, and also in such a way that you almost don't notice it > when you unpack it on a normal posix filesystem.
Why? Do posix FSes care about EAs?
> The .Appledoube/myfile hack satisfies that requirement.
In a very ugly way -- sort of like using that "tire in a can" to fix a flat. Yeah, it plugs the hole. How is "mv" supposed to work with ".LinuxDouble" directories?
> As Apples have only one resource,
Mac OS X supports arbitrary streams.
> this "myfile" would need to be a directory with the > stream-names in there for NTFS, or the other way around, the filename > should be a directory with the resources in there.
Cripes. Nextstep again. Let's make everything look like a posix FS, but make everything else about filesystems and applications look like RiscOS or NextStep. That's actually _more_ disruptive.
If the streams access method we decide on is a _superset_ of posix Fs requirements, what's the problem? Posix apps still get what they expect. So extending the namespace to provide streams support seems like a reasonable idea.
-Michael
- 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/
| |