Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives (was: silent semantic changes with reiser4)

Dave Kleikamp
2004-09-03T13:33:00Z

On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 08:16, Spam wrote:
> > You're missing the point. We don't need transparency in all apps. You
> > can write an application to be as transparent as you want, but you don't
> > need every app to to understand every file format.
>
> No, but not every user "can write an application" either, or even
> have the skills to apply patches. What I was talking about wasn't
> just tar, which itself isn't the best example anyway,

That was one of the examples you gave, that and .jpg. I believe they
are both ridiculous.

> but the idea
> that users can load plugins that will extend the functionality of
> their filesystems. That idea seem to be to be _much_ better than
> trying to teach every user how to write applications or patch
> existing ones.

If I understand Hans' plugins, they are not user-loadable, but rather a
statically built part of the kernel.

>
> No, but if I wanted to have an encryption plugin active for some of
> my files or directories then why should I not be able to? I still
> want to edit, view and save my encrypted files.

I would not argue against an encryption plugin.

> Again, this was just an example of what could be done with plugins.
> It is not said that every conceivable plugin will be written, nor
> loaded per default.

This I agree with.

> Even though plugins cannot today be dynamically
> used, they will be eventually. Reiser4 is still very young.

As kernel modules, this would make sense. I don't see just any
unprivileged user being able to add code into the file system, though.

> Please separate your thoughts for specific plugins from those of the
> idea to have plugins at all.

I'm not against reiser4 plugins. I don't think file system code should
care about the type of data in a file, and do any interpretation based
on it.

Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center