From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Alexander G. M. Smith" Subject: ".meta." as a Name Prefix Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:16:53 -0400 EDT Message-ID: <2407572152-BeMail@cr593174-a> References: <200404170255.i3H2ts1S011836@sirius.cs.pdx.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <200404170255.i3H2ts1S011836@sirius.cs.pdx.edu> List-Id: To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Elliott Mitchell wrote on Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:55:54 -0700 (PDT): > > From: Grant Miner > > I like "metas". > > Chalk me up as neutral about the name itself. That is I'm neutral about > ".metas" or "..metas", I'm firmly against using "metas" (or any other > name) without at least a leading period. I suspect Linus et al might very > well reject such a FS because this would be a fatal flaw. I'm concerned > about using such a short and therefore precious name for filesystem > functions, but OTOH it might well be accessed often by a user and > therefore appropriate. I agree, it needs to start with a period. I'd also drop the idea of having a separate directory for metadata and just use a common name prefix. ".meta.mime" for example, rather than ".meta/mime". I'm probably repeating myself, but the trouble is that the .meta directory isn't a full directory - you can't add attributes to it. In BeOS, that's useful - the directory's GUI window coordinates are stored as attributes on the directory. I'd like to use the standard GUI file explorer to also check on attributes! With a .meta directory, it seems good in a psychological organizational way but it breaks the object model. That breakage will cause more programming annoyances than using a prefix instead, in my humble opinion. - Alex