Re: Perils of Config Files (was DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd)

[Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:37:45AM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> Second: it is clear that an FS search can be implemented stupidly. This
> is a reason to fix the search engine, but it is not a reason to pervert
> the model of name binding.
> 
> In my oinion, an object is an object is an object. A directory should be
> no less an object than a file is.

I can see the beauty in such a design.  However, the way I am used to thinking
about large amounts of data is in trees.  If this theoretically nice design
cannot handle that well (for example because there is no "good" way to map the
thing), then that is a serious problem IMO.

It might not be unsolvable, but before I throw out a known working design, I
need a bit more evidence that the replacement can do at least what the old
system could (and which was useful).

> > I think it is useful to have a "raw" version of every file, for which you
> > are certain that it contains all information that a translator can show
> > about it.
> 
> I understand what you are saying here, and I agree that you want to have
> some interface that conveys complete information about the object.
> 
> But this interface isn't "raw" from an implementation perspective. It
> has an implementing server, just like any other facet. As Marcus says,
> *all* facets are implemented by translators.

This makes sense in a persistent system.  I'm often still thinking in terms of
POSIX though.  I hope you don't mind. :-)

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature