At Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:55:21 +0100, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:56:50PM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > here is a small issue to ponder. I'd like input on this. > > > > However, it happens that in Unix, Directories and Files are not only > > very distinct objects, but they are also understand by a wide range of > > applications simultaneously. Ie, many applications look at a node in > > the filesystem, decide if it is a file _or_ a directory, and then take > > an appropriate action. All applications that can traverse a filesystem > > belong into this group, for example ls, rm, grep, find, etc. This is > > the most prominent group, but I would expect there to be isolated cases > > of other applications that do this (maybe Apache? Input welcome here). > > Huh? Why? I'd say it's quite clear that there is a huge number of > applications which fall into this category. Everything that has a file->open > dialog for example. This group is so large that IMO it's undoable to make a > (possibly small) change in all of them.
If there is a file->open dialog, then the decision what filename is treated as a file or a directory is made partly by the user. But you are right, the application actually has different GUI elements for directories and for files. I didn't think of file->open dialogs, thanks for pointing this out! (But then, in a POLA system you would probably move the file->open dialog into the shell, reducing the number of affected applications to one...). > > Using the poly-type approach would remove all ambiguities: Applications > > would either see a file or a directory, but not both. Applications who > > _know_ about hybrid types can use the new functions to switch facets > > explicitely. If a user wants to use an application with a hybrid type, > > he will have to make his intent explicit by providing the node with the > > right facet type to the application. > > This sounds good. I think I would like to have the creation of the nodes with > other facets (so the creation of "foo" when "foo.tar.gz" exists) explicit. > That is, the user has to do it. Otherwise there will be too many name space > collisions. For example, it is usual that a foo.tar.gz unpacks a directory > called foo and files inside it. If that directory and those files already > exist, strange things will happen when a script unpacks it, possibly removing > the directory first. Yes, choosing the names is a problem. However, I am not sure you can always leave this to the user. There is a strong motivation to enter tar.gz files automatically by double-clicking on them. Asking for a directory name would remove the transparency. I have not thought about this problem, but it seems to me that at least within the interactive graphical shell there can be a strong convention. In fact, the shell does not even need to create the different facets in the same directory as the "facetted" file---it can use a private scratch area. This is one area of the multi-facetted solution that would need to be worked out. Thanks for your input! Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
