On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 08:29:33PM -0200, Fabio Utzig wrote: > Yes, I was expecting it! So I had 3 options in mind: > > Option 1 - Use a "drive" name as was implemented. Btw, it's not limited > to single letter drive names! Sure if someone really likes DOS, they > could use A:, B:, etc. This choice is extremely easy to parse. And it > also brings me fond memories of AmigaDOS! > > Option 2 - Use a directory as a mount point like Unix but without > implementing a full tree struct. Also very easy to parse, but somehow I > find it very non-elegant because there would be no root path and such. I > just personally dislike it because it looks incomplete, which brings me > to: > > Option 3 - Use a proper tree structure with mount points, mounts inside > other mount's directories, etc. This is quite harder to do properly but > would be my preferred aesthetic choice. But this needs extra things like > ensuring the ordering of mounts, more error handling (if a root mount > fails for any reason what to do with the remaining drives, etc). I would > like to move to this but it could be added later because it's basically > adding code and what is in place stays there, I think. > > If you think a tree structure is a must and "drive" names are an > aberration, I would be OK at giving a try on implementing a proper VFS!
Re: option 2- I understand what you mean about the missing root path, and I agree that it would be odd. Personally, I don't think option 3 is worth the effort, at least not now. Just speaking for myself, I think option 1 is not a real problem. Like I said, it was just a knee-jerk reaction when I saw the colon! Thanks, Chris
