Re: [9fans] Re: everything is a directory

["David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1488 bytes --]

On 8/30/07, jsnx <jason.dusek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2:06 am, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAG...@null.net> wrote:
> > "jsnx" <jason.du...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > On Aug 23, 1:50 am, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAG...@null.net> wrote:
> > >> If .owners was enforced by the OS...
> > > ...that could lead to a lot of 'reserved words'...
> >
> > Probably it should be .attributes/owner, no new added word beyond
> > what would be needed for extended attributes anyway.
>
> That's a good idea, and I think that brings us full circle. If we
> allow for a
> .attributes/content which is accepted by all the major tools, then
> what I want
> to do is done.
>

I'm a bit confused at this point... What is this proposal and why is it
attractive?

On the surface it looks like you could get everything you want using a pair
of files to me.  One to tell you the start of the file's normal data (or the
end), and the other to let you have scratch space for arbitrary key/value
pairs.

The secondary file is just then a table of contents for the original file
that just happens to hold both the core file data and the other gunk that
goes with it.... which brings me back to the idea that these problems should
have been solved in the file formats themselves (and again, not terribly
sure that ACLs or such could have been safely implemented in that way, my
understanding is that is how the extended attributes can be put to good use
on other filesystems)


Dave

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2121 bytes --]