> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > Secondly, we haven't seen a convincining argument as to why putting a
> > > FS into a file provides a significant benefit.
> >
> > A fair point, though I haven't seen a convincing argument why a plain
> > old directory isn't adequate for holding a compound document.
>
> (a) Because it prevents the normal user from messing around with the
> internal of the `directory' and with it preventing the application
> programmer from adding tons of code to detect and workaround unexpected
> changes.
That actually sounds like a most-excellent feature to me. :) Why
is this needed to be done in kernel-space, anyhow? Sounds very user-level.
Perhaps a well-written library would suffice...
> (b) The normal user expects a `bunch of data' in a single file, not in a
> directory.
I would disagree w/ that, actually. Many think that now because of
Micro$oft, that doesn't mean it's the most optimal way of doing it. Besides,
there are tarballs, and you could just have your code able to understand a
tarball.
> (c) The content of the `directory' isn't of interest to the user but to some
> applications.
This doesn't seem very likely, at least not to me... :)
Stephen
-
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/