From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  4 Feb 2011 00:36:34 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <67e83a64e68abcd481054989a33f2105@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <FA7AB636-7023-4B20-8E20-B2CC1AE30322@gmail.com>
References: <201102031245.33842.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
	<201102031444.40895.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimje_peQjPjpCU0bVcAL6SAH1k1P0NSUmGMZAU4@mail.gmail.com>
	<201102031527.59587.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
	<86aaidkli8.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <20110203174214.2df27fa6@gmail.com>
	<eb9c794f193c0fd2c1e34953289c77e9@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<20110203193007.68f3c8a6@gmail.com>
	<FA7AB636-7023-4B20-8E20-B2CC1AE30322@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] files vs. directories
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ac62b994-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> >> >> > > This feature might be more useful if the directory entries
> were > presented to clients of the FS in a textual format, but that
> would > encourage, if not require, far more parsing in the system, and
> that is > bad both for performance and for security.
>
> Sounds like a good argument for requests to potentially specify
> response formats (at least in cases where the default is undesirable
> or sub-optimal for performance reasons)....

wanted: interpreter droid to interpret
the binary language of my moisture evaporators.

- erik