> * Mark-Andre Hopf said:
>
> > > 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.
> And what about "abnormal" users who want to mess around with it? You're
> voting for the lack of flexibility here...
No. Just make this behaviour configureable. E.g. by
export ENTER_WORMHOLE=1
Would be even better than a mount option as someone suggested before.
> > (b) The normal user expects a `bunch of data' in a single file, not in a
> > directory.
> > (c) The content of the `directory' isn't of interest to the user but to some
> > applications.
> directory <--> application <--> "normal" user
>
> tell me, where does the "normal" user has contact with the directory itself?
> He uses the application, so I think you don't make a point here.
A normal user will use the shell => contact!
But in the end I have to admit that this `directory as file' stuff looks to
complicated to be the right thing to do. I guess it makes sense to ReiserFS,
which appears to be something between a normal filesystem like ext2 and a
Mark
TOAD -- A Simple and Powerful C++ GUI Toolkit for X-Windows
Freely available at http://toad.home.pages.de/
/OO\
__(/_--_\)___________ Mark-André Hopf <hopf@informatik.uni-rostock.de>
-
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/