From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40708160539i1655d999qf8905693f13f266d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:39:54 +0200 From: "Francisco J Ballesteros" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] everything is a directory In-Reply-To: <1187223167.452937.319060@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1187223167.452937.319060@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: a99049ba-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 In the first edition of Plan B we had "boxes". They are generic containers that behave either as files or as directories depending on what op. you use. In general, a box is a typed container that has inner boxes. After having then working, the lack of applications made us drop the idea and switch back to files. A brief description is at "The Box, a replacement for files" paper in lsub.org. Also, I think I still have the source of that plan b, with a prefix mount table included and a box library, but would have to dig in the worm to re-locate it. On 8/16/07, jsnx wrote: > I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but it seems > like a good fit. What better forum for deep thought on the meaning of > files and directories than the Plan 9 news group? > > There would be great utility in merging files and directories into a > composite content/container object that respond 'read' and 'write' for > file ops and 'list', 'add', 'delete' for directory ops. For example, a > disk drive could respond to 'read' with a bunch of stuff on the disk, > and respond to 'list' with a listing of it's hardware settings, which > could be set with a 'write'. Merged file/directories also make a lot > of sense when you think about languages with hierarchical modules -- > instead of having naming conventions to find a sub-module, you just > look it up and read it. Similarly, hierarchical documents map straight > on to the mixed file/folder -- you put the intro in the head and its > components under the head. > > I'm sure this idea has come up in the past; many of my ideas are like > that. The 'everything is a file' model is proverbial, but it was not > so once upon a time. I'm sure the 'everything is a directory' model > had its proponents in days gone by, just as functional languages did > (and will again!). In fact, 'everything is a directory' is the man > behind the curtain in LDAP. > > In the considered opinion of the list, is "everything is a directory" > a big mess, a resource wasting fantasy, an idea whose time has come? >