Marcus Sundman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, you see, there is no way for me to use filenames intelligibly unless > their encodings are knowable. (In fact I'm quite surprised that zfs > doesn't (and even can't) know the encoding(s) of filenames. Usually Sun > seems to make relatively sane design decisions. This, however, is more > what I'd expect from linux with their overpragmatic "who cares if it's > sane, as long as it kinda works"-attitudes.)
To be fair, ZFS is constrained by compatibility requirements with existing systems. For the longest time the only interpretation that Unix kernels put on the filenames passed by applications was to treat "/" and "\000" specially. The interfaces provided to applications assume this is the entire extent of the process. Changing this incompatibly is not an option, and adding new interfaces to support this is meaningless unless there is a critical mass of applications that use them. It's not reasonable to talk about "ZFS" doing this, since it's just a part of the wider ecosystem. To solve this problem at the moment takes one of two approaches. 1. A userland convention is adopted to decide on what meaning the byte strings that the kernel provides have. 2. Some new interfaces are created to pass this information into the kernel and get it back. Leaving aside the merits of either approach, both of them require significant agreement from applications to use a certain approach before they reap any benefits. There's not much ZFS itself can do there. Boyd _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
