David Dabbs wrote:
Before we get too far into the merits of implementation-specific pathname
resolution for paths starting with //, it seems wise to address the POSIX
implications of any duality implied by this (or any other) semantic change.
This is the first issue raised in my original post.
see e.g.
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/doc/85/1-05.ps.gz
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 17:13, Hans Reiser wrote:
Use of : in addition to / is a bad idea, see The Hideous Name by Rob
Pike for why.
Hans
What about using // as some URI entry point?
An URI looks like:
PROTOCOL://PROTOCOL_SPECIFIC_NAMESPACE_IMPLEMENTATION
As no one can guarantee unix semantics in an URI space only symbolic
links are allowed to and from the URL namespace.
The protocol names are issued by the kernel to prevent
Use of : in addition to / is a bad idea, see The Hideous Name by Rob
Pike for why.
Hans
I've read The Hideous Name, and I think you're taking Pike out of context.
He wrote that document when device files were still only a part of a
research version of UNIX. His main point is that
Christian Mayrhuber
What about using // as some URI entry point?
An URI looks like:
PROTOCOL://PROTOCOL_SPECIFIC_NAMESPACE_IMPLEMENTATION
I considered that in that //: is implicitly file://, but didn't make it
explicit in the proposal. Perhaps //: could be a legal alias for //file://.
Christian Mayrhuber wrote:
What about using // as some URI entry point?
One problem that using // may have (thought it is personally my favourite
option right now) is that realpath(3) may cause the // to be eaten, and
this is used by many programs to resolve pathnames to remvoe symlinks,
bogus
Before we get too far into the merits of implementation-specific pathname
resolution for paths starting with //, it seems wise to address the POSIX
implications of any duality implied by this (or any other) semantic change.
This is the first issue raised in my original post. Gunnar Ritter also
Christian Mayrhuber wrote:
//http://somehost:port/foo/bla
While we're here, I'll point out that http://somehost/foo/bla and
http://somehost/foo/bla/ are valid, distinct URLs.
If http://somehost/foo/bla/ exists, many HTTP servers will return it
as the target of a redirect for
David Dabbs wrote:
Use of : in addition to / is a bad idea, see The Hideous Name by Rob
Pike for why.
Hans
I've read The Hideous Name, and I think you're taking Pike out of context.
He wrote that document when device files were still only a part of a
research version of UNIX. His main
From: Jamie Lokier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christian Mayrhuber wrote:
//http://somehost:port/foo/bla
While we're here, I'll point out that http://somehost/foo/bla and
http://somehost/foo/bla/ are valid, distinct URLs.
... snip
Food for thought.
-- Jamie
While I think there
Hans Reiser wrote:
David Dabbs wrote:
Use of : in addition to / is a bad idea, see The Hideous Name by Rob
Pike for why.
Hans
I've read The Hideous Name, and I think you're taking Pike out of
context.
He wrote that document when device files were still only a part of a
David Dabbs wrote:
Do you have a proposal to
expose metadata on a directory such that it
a) allows one to distinguish a directory entry from directory metadata,
this should be only a style convention, not a deep semantic difference.
Maybe Peter can comment on this.
b) uses only
12 matches
Mail list logo
