At 04:37 PM 7/22/2008, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
To follow symlinks, or not to follow symlinks, that is the question.
That is what question?
Just a joke in the characterization of Shakespeare.
And to whom are you posing it?
No one in particular.
A symlink is not an object that Windows knows how to describe.
I clearly understand the technical limitations of symlinks under
Windows. I love them. No... I LOVE them. Gods gift from heaven.
Strictly speaking however this is an aspect of POSIX vs. Windows FS
capabilities. Symlinks are application based pointers, and should not
reveal themselves as directories to the underlying FS find/search API, but
that is exactly how the original developers of AFS on Windows decided to
use them. The Windows 32 bit attribute on FS objects have no attribute bit
that describes a symlink object (this was an extremely bad idea, or lack
thereof, on Microsofts part). Even if Microsoft allocated an attribute bit
for one today, no application could immediately make use of it. It is an
unfortunately ugly situation, but one where Windows is better off just
following them.
Following symlinks causes grief for those who don't remember that they have
links to other volumes within their FS directory tree. This is what I was
trying to express. I suppose it might be nice if a Windows file delete
didn't work through symlinks. I haven't really given it critical thought
however as to how many things this would break. Probably a lot.
I both love and hate symlinks. Much more love than hate. If only
junctions worked as well.
Rodney
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
