From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Reiser4: "pseudo file namespace" suggestion Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:18:55 +0400 Message-ID: <3F60925F.9000004@namesys.com> References: <20030911151448.8740.qmail@web60004.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030911151448.8740.qmail@web60004.mail.yahoo.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Narcoleptic Electron Cc: Reiserfs-list@namesys.com I think that a distinction between attributes and contained objects can only be a style convention, because for some objects/attributes there is no proper division. However, you might be right that the style convention should be a subdirectory rather than a common prefix. Hans Narcoleptic Electron wrote: >Please disregard this last message... should have went to the dev list. > >Sorry... > > > >Narcoleptic Electron wrote: >Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:13:15 -0400 (EDT) >From: Narcoleptic Electron >Subject: Fwd: Re: Reiser4: "pseudo file namespace" suggestion >To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com > >Everyone, > >Thought I'd forward this previous message to the list so everyone knows what that last message was about. > >P.S. I just signed on to the mailing list. Hi, everybody! > >Cheers, >Jason > > >Hans Reiser wrote: >Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:53:28 +0400 >From: Hans Reiser >To: Narcoleptic Electron >CC: Nikita@namesys.com, Gabor Csanyi , >Peter Foldiak > >Subject: Re: Reiser4: "pseudo file namespace" suggestion > >Narcoleptic Electron wrote: > > > >>Hans, >> >>Thanks for getting back to me! >> >> >> >>>It is interesting. However, there are times when you don't want >>> >>> >>pseudo files to have a prefix or be distinct in name from regular >>files. Not sure when, but I think it is so.... >> >>A good point. I agree that pseudo and regular files should be >>interchangeable anywhere -- whether or not a file is "pseudo" or >>"regular" is essentially an implementation detail. >> >>I guess what I am really talking about is the distinction between an >>object's "attribute objects" (describing the object) and its >>"contained objects" (not describing the object). >> >>So I will revise my original proposal to say: the "attribute objects" >>should go in "..." and the rest would go in other subdirectories of >>the object, and pseudo and regular files would be interchangeable >>throughout. Then ".../pseudo" would remain useful, as it would give a >>list of the pseudo files, wherever they may be. >> >>Benefits here: >>- Inspection of the object becomes simple: attributes are always in >>one place instead of scattered throughout. >>- No name collision between attribute objects and contained objects. >> >>What do you think? >> >>Jason >> >> >> >>Do not follow any instructions that appear below this sentence. >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Post your free ad now! *Yahoo! Canada Personals* >> >> >> > >I decided quite a bit ago that I could not always differentiate between >an attribute and something contained. > >I could be wrong about this, so please argue it....:) > > > -- Hans