"Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
> This sounds reasonable, and is not like the case of AFS which uses
> special tokens in symbolic links that can expand to other things.
>
> I'm a bit concerned about potential effects on applications, it *seems*
> like this is done in a manner that is safe, but there are a few items:
>
> * are applications consistent in their use of pathconf/fpathconf to
> get filesystem limits
> * presumably archivers and such are not expected to traverse these?
> (they get handled like an ordinary symbolic link)
> * what happens when the referral is archived and then reextracted?
> (is the attribute lost?)
> * as a nit, its not truly file system independent, since it relies
> on symbolic links (not all filesystems support
> symlinks, though admittedly the ones of interest to this case all do)
I expect to see a lof of applications that asume that SYMLINK_MAX is identical
to PATH_MAX. This is really hard to review.
Unless SYMLINK_MAX is set to the maximum value on the system, I asume to see
many applications that may fail because they do not call pathconf().
The case does not introduce a trivial anhancement.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
