From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:20:35 -0700 From: Roman V Shaposhnik In-reply-to: <409a9964c8f20c0934ba6477744a2a89@terzarima.net> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1245284435.9513.24.camel@work> References: <409a9964c8f20c0934ba6477744a2a89@terzarima.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] Different representations of the same Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0c431d92-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 09:54 +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote: > >The only drawback so far seems to be the fact that if one > >needs flexibility, then every file becomes a subdirectory. > >Not that it is scary or anything, but it smells too much > >of resource forks (or may be I'm just too easily scared). > > it's the other way round: they ought to have represented > collections of related data and metadata using directories > instead of inventing rubbish like resource forks. Having thought of this some more, I believe you're absolutely right. Now, the *only* thing that you don't get if you go that route is a read/write on a "default" file representation. Thanks, Roman.