Glenn Fowler wrote: [snip] > > > > This could in theory implemented in a compatible way. > > > > > > I think a better alternative may be to do something like the POSIX (was > > > thet really POSIX or something else ?) version number scheme, e.g. file > > > "xyz" with versions 1, 2 and 9 can be accessed via "xyz;1", "xyz;2" and > > > "xyz;9"... substreams could then be addressed via > > > "xyz;name_of_xattrfile" ... > > > But then you would not be able to tell whether "xyz;name_of_xattrfile" > > would be a file name or referencing a substream. > > > Note that ';' is a valid character for filenames on Solaris. > > it was digital vms and it was an abomination > > any filesystem extensions should follow time honored pathname and > pathname system call syntax/semantics so that the only things that > need to change are the internals of the pathname file system call > implementations [snip] > you may think the /$/ is ugly, but its not nearly as ugly > as recoding how many commands with additional options and parallel > universe system calls -- if we wanted that we could join microsoft > (i.e., a different set of open/close/read/write calls for each file type)
I agree with that. It seems the XATTR support Solaris in it's current version is not integrateable into any shell (and the original patch is incomplete as many stuff breaks into pieces (the idea of PWD=. breaks too much stuff)). The XATTR files need to be accessible from the normal filesystem namespace (e.g. each file needs a proper parent (even if this is a file, but that does not hurt as seen in Reiser4 :-) )), otherwise the shell can only access them via weired helper applications. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
