Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

Hans Reiser
2004-09-07T18:06:34Z

Horst von Brand wrote:

>Spam <spam@tnonline.net> said:
>
>
>>Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se> said:
>>
>>
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>>>Could you please try summarize a few of the arguments that you find
>>>especially compelling? This thread has gotten very confused since
>>>there are a bunch of different subjects all being intermixed here.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>> Indeed. We are discussion changes to the heart of Linux. It is bound
>> to get a little heated :/
>>
>>
>
>True. But without any specific applications, just "this would be nice to
>have", the discussion can't go forward.
>
>
>
>>>What are we discussing?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>1. Do we want support for named streams?
>>>
>>>
>>> I belive the answer is yes, since both NTFS and HFS (that's the
>>> MacOS filesystem, isn't it?) supports streams we want Linux to
>>> support this if possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone disagreeing?
>>>
>>>
>> No :)
>>
>>
>
>There are many people around here who disagree (that is precisely the heart
>of the discussion). I for one don't think Linux has to get $RANDOM_FEATURE
>just because $SOME_OTHER_OS has got it. Either the feature stands on its
>own _in the context of POSIX/Unix/Linux_ (possibly as an extension or
>modification of said standards) or it isn't worth it.
>
>
>
>>>2. How do we want to expose named streams?
>>>
>>>
>>> One suggestion is file-as-directory in some form.
>>>
>>>
>
>Which is broken, as it forbids hard links to files.
>
>
No, it forbids hard links to the directory aspect of the file-directory
duality.

>
>
>Now you have 3 principal types of objects: Directories, containers (files
>with streams), and files (no streams).
>
No, the reiser4 design supports only files and directories, but makes
them able to do what people use streams for.

The reiser4 design is based on a hatred of streams, and a desire to show
that adding more features to files and directories makes streams
unnecessary.

Hans