From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yury Umanets Subject: Re: aal_assert() Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:19:42 +0300 Message-ID: <3E1EC86E.4070505@namesys.com> References: <20021231005440.GA1573@gnu.org> <15901.23872.24060.68353@laputa.namesys.com> <20030110132628.GA1056@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030110132628.GA1056@gnu.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Andrew Clausen Cc: Nikita Danilov , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Andrew Clausen wrote: >On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:30:08PM +0300, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > >>These "message ids" are traditional way reiserfs code uses to identify >>errors (probably because early during development preprocessor features >>were unknown) and Hans feels himself attached to them emotionally. :-) >> >> >Well, I'll give some arguments against this scheme: > >(1) it's more code, more work, more space, etc. Programmers are >minimalists, and adding extra stuff feels dirty. > >(2) "ids" are the Wrong Way to identify things... things should >be identified by their essence, not by tags. This is the whole >OO vs relational database flamewar. Relational databases >(the "by essense/being, not tag") won, game over. > >You don't query things by tags, but by what they are. > >I know this is all quite subjective... I just wanted to provide >some emotional arguments as well as rational ones *grin* > > >Another thing: I'd like to see libaal reused in all file system >tool implementations. That's my main motivation for cleaning it >up. My first target is ntfs... > It is more reasonable. Probably Hans will agree with you because of this. > >Cheers, >Andrew > > > > > -- Yury Umanets