On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 18:03 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:37:45AM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > Second: it is clear that an FS search can be implemented stupidly. This > > is a reason to fix the search engine, but it is not a reason to pervert > > the model of name binding. > > > > In my oinion, an object is an object is an object. A directory should be > > no less an object than a file is. > > I can see the beauty in such a design. However, the way I am used to thinking > about large amounts of data is in trees. If this theoretically nice design > cannot handle that well (for example because there is no "good" way to map the > thing), then that is a serious problem IMO.
Then arrange your data in trees. I see no problem. I see only a bug in 'find' that needs to be fixed. By the way, the find bug needs to be fixed in any case. Consider loop-back mounts. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
