From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Smietanowski Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:00:49 +0200 Message-ID: <42D06531.9060903@stesmi.com> References: <20050630153738.GU11013@nysv.org> <200506301952.j5UJqPrn013513@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <87wto5yo9o.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <87wto5yo9o.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Hubert Chan Cc: Horst von Brand , Nikita Danilov , Douglas McNaught , Kyle Moffett , David Masover , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Lincoln Dale , Gregory Maxwell , Hans Reiser , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hubert Chan wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:25 -0400, Horst von Brand said: > > >>>This doesn't even invalidate the userland VFSs of the other guys, >>>they're still needed for systems whose kernels don't have a metadata >>>facility. > > >>So the metadata facility in kernel won't be used, for portability's >>sake. > > > Oh gee. Every operating system does threads differently. Mozilla has > an abstraction layer called nspr that allows them to handle threads > portably. glib/gtk has their own threads abstraction. On Windows, nspr > will use the Windows method for handling threads. On Linux, it will use > the Linux way. On systems that don't support threads, it can usually > emulate it using timers. > > It's the exact same thing with the userspace VFS. If GNOME needs to > handle extended attributes, it can use one mechanism under one operating > system, or emulate it using some ugly hack on operating systems that > don't support extended attributes. > > Isn't that the whole point of having a VFS? > So basically if I write a program that works in both Gnome and KDE I should (according to your description) implement my own VFS that will use the Gnome or KDE VFS that will then use the OS VFS. Is it only me finding that a little silly? I mean, if I am to have the same functionality under neither Gnome nor VFS and they don't support something I need I _NEED_ a vfs so that my program is so totally independent on anything at all. My program calling My VFS which calls KDE/Gnome's VFS which calls the OS VFS will be slowe than just calling the VFS immidiately - I do hope you can see that. // Stefan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFC0GUxBrn2kJu9P78RApViAJ4q6BrVh0H19S4pN+Zc0bqh7zk2sgCeLRVK 8b+qlg2BHjwxg8HnVANQ5XA= =2uNQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----