On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:37:52 -, P Witte wrote
To develop this idea a bit further: Keep the old directory structure,
but use it in a different way. Instead of a combined
pathame/filename, each record stores a filename of say max 20 or 22
char long, which may be seen by old programs that
On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:55, - Aucun - wrote:
(...)
Lotus Notes is not only an emailing
system but rather a database system. I recently found out for a personal
small development that the millions of records (not files, records) in the
hundreds of databases online all over the world seem to
- Aucun - wrote:
While I write this, I suddenly realise that I could have done it from
QPC+SMSQ/E+SBASIC since QPC has the same shell command (or open a Windows
application from SBASIC), but then I should have bought about 150 QPCs for
the ~150 users of this system in my company!
We have
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:36:11 +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote
While I write this, I suddenly realise that I could have done it from
QPC+SMSQ/E+SBASIC since QPC has the same shell command (or open a Windows
application from SBASIC), but then I should have bought about 150 QPCs
for the ~150
George writes:
Caution! Caution! I was asked by someone to allow any file type to be set
by GWASS (other than 255 which is special). This implies that someone
somewhere is perhaps setting up file types of 3 to 254 in assembled
programs. Suddenly using one of these for another purpose might
Isnt the thing to do here to emulate the Windoze solution? Ie, each
directory entry has a short filename [SFN] wchich complies in every respect
with the old directory specs. The LFN is stored within the directory file in
specially marked records, or in a separate file. Eventually, the old system
jms1 wrote:
Surely the trick is to check whether the directory is type 5. If so treat it
like a new directory and file naming. If not treat it like a type 255
directory.
Careful with file types. Some have been used in the old days. I am sure
we used file types for some grpahics files in The
Joachim Van der Auwera wrote:
jms1 wrote:
Surely the trick is to check whether the directory is type 5. If so
treat it
like a new directory and file naming. If not treat it like a type 255
directory.
Careful with file types. Some have been used in the old days. I am sure
we used file types for
Marcel Kilgus writes:
Just an unrelated note to the DOS long-filename-hack: They had to do
this because a single file name was limited to only 8 characters. We
have 36 characters to work with, which is much less of a burden. So I
don't see the need for something similar.
But they had a
P Witte wrote:
Marcel Kilgus writes:
Just an unrelated note to the DOS long-filename-hack: They had to do
this because a single file name was limited to only 8 characters. We
have 36 characters to work with, which is much less of a burden. So I
don't see the need for something similar.
But they
In a message dated 14/01/05 08:34:59 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Careful with file types. Some have been used in the old days. I am sure
we used file types for some grpahics files in The PAINTER. There were
some other programs using file types as well.
However, I think
In a message dated 12/01/05 06:08:07 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question here.
Currently, the way directories are handled is by making a directory a
somewhat special file (file type -1, IIRC).
Apart from that, though,a directory ia a simple file that can be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/01/05 06:08:07 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question here.
Currently, the way directories are handled is by making a directory a
somewhat special file (file type -1, IIRC).
Apart from that, though,a directory ia a simple
What I thought you were saying was a method by which you were
integrating the win drive into a network with other computers, in terms
of accessing the files. I am assuming that you are allowed to log in a
portable PC with QPC2 installed onto a PC network where you work.
--
Malcolm
Jérôme Grimbert wrote:
We have two kind of filesystem: the floppy and the harddisk.
Maintaining floppy compatibility is essential.
Floppies don't need such long paths anyway.
If we could store the EXEC information on DOS format, things would be
simple, and I would push for the DOS format,
On 13 Jan 2005 at 13:46, Jérôme Grimbert wrote:
(...)
BUT, the harddisk does not need to be exchanged with another system.
Therefore, we can do as we want on a harddisk partition.
As long as we are able to copy the harddisk file to the floppy, who care
how the file is stored on the harddisk.
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
What I thought you were saying was a method by which you were
integrating the win drive into a network with other computers, in terms
of accessing the files. I am assuming that you are allowed to log in a
portable PC with QPC2 installed
On 12 Jan 2005 at 12:23, P Witte wrote:
(...)
I'm just asking this question since I don't think I'd be competent enough
to make these changes.
If YOU cant, that doesnt leave us many options ;)
As I see it, the problem isn't so much the actual coding in itself (you could
do that, too).
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
clip
Interesting ... can you write this up sometime in QLToday as this
would be a useful guide to 'Getting the best out of QPC'.
I think it has been mentioned a couple of times.
The QPC method is unique to QPC2 I think. The
Dilwyn Jones writes:
We've down this road many times before, unless Marcel has new ideas to
offer I don't really see the point of raising this again. Just because
JRH managed to exceed 36 characters in his zip files!
Not quite. Ive always lobbied for an advanced new file system. Im now
Marcel Kilgus writes:
Im assuming that you were answering two different mails here. Forget the QPC
'hole' that got me going and lets look at path depth for SMSQ/E in general:
Unfortunately directories have to be read raw, meaning that the
format is limited to 36 characters. If one were to
François Van Emelen writes:
Perhaps we should have another bash at finding a solution to our
debilitating filename length problem?
snip
Let battle commence!
Per
What about QVFS QDOS Virtual File System by Hans-Peter Reckenwald?
François Van Emelen
I did mention this (option 2) I tried it a
Perhaps we should have another bash at finding a solution to our
debilitating filename length problem?
snip
Let battle commence!
Per
What about QVFS QDOS Virtual File System by Hans-Peter Reckenwald?
François Van Emelen
I did mention this (option 2) I tried it a long time ago. It
Quite agree. I too have recently been driven nuts with the limitations.
A new set of
traps to an advanced directory system sounds good. Perhaps with a new
'CD' navigation
command. I suppose the old traps could be rewritten such that older
software has
access to the new system to a path length
On 11 Jan 2005 at 16:24, Malcolm Lear wrote:
(...)
Does anyone
know the history
of the 36 character limit. Was it a file name length limit set before
directories came about?
Yes. At first the Ql didn't have directories at all. They came, unless I'm
mistaken with TK II and disk interfaces
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
clip
In an indirect way, by defining the pseudo devices like DEV you can
work around this to some extent in some circumstances if you are
desperate. Setting the base devices for DOS to have longer Windows path
names lets me
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rich Mellor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:42:37 -, P Witte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
cut
The recent questionnair should be able to answer the question: What
percentage of QLers use both Qdos AND hard disks [HDD] (a small
percentage I
would
I have a question here.
Currently, the way directories are handled is by making a directory a
somewhat special file (file type -1, IIRC).
Apart from that, though,a directory ia a simple file that can be
accessed more or less like any file.
Directories contain an entry per file referenced in
Actually, there are two separate issues here, one is the name
length, the
other is the path depth. Personally, Im not too fussed about file or
directory
names being limited to 36 chars, although ideally it should be more
like
255+ chars for compatibility with various advanced barbarian
systems.
29 matches
Mail list logo
