Lincoln Dale wrote: > >> Now, if his target is reduced to whether we can eliminate a function >> indirection, and whether we can review the code together and see if it >> is easy to extend plugins and pluginids to other filesystems by finding >> places to make it more generic and accepting of per filesystem plugins, >> especially if it is not tied to going into 2.6.13, well, that is the >> conversation I would have liked to have had. >> >> >> > fantastic - some common ground. > any reason WHY there has to be an abstraction of 'pluginid' when in > theory VFS operations can already provide the necessary abstraction on > a per-object basis?
VFS supplies instances, plugins are classes. If a language can instantiate an object, that does not eliminate the value of being able to create classes. Does it make sense to you now?
