In the first edition of Plan B we had "boxes". They are generic containers that
behave either as files or as directories depending on what op. you
use. In general,
a box is a typed container that has inner boxes. After having then
working, the lack
of applications made us drop the idea and switch back to files. A
brief description is
at "The Box, a replacement for files" paper in lsub.org. Also, I think
I still have the source
of that plan b, with a prefix mount table included and a box library,
but would have to
dig in the worm to re-locate it.

On 8/16/07, jsnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but it seems
> like a good fit. What better forum for deep thought on the meaning of
> files and directories than the Plan 9 news group?
>
> There would be great utility in merging files and directories into a
> composite content/container object that respond 'read' and 'write' for
> file ops and 'list', 'add', 'delete' for directory ops. For example, a
> disk drive could respond to 'read' with a bunch of stuff on the disk,
> and respond to 'list' with a listing of it's hardware settings, which
> could be set with a 'write'. Merged file/directories also make a lot
> of sense when you think about languages with hierarchical modules --
> instead of having naming conventions to find a sub-module, you just
> look it up and read it. Similarly, hierarchical documents map straight
> on to the mixed file/folder -- you put the intro in the head and its
> components under the head.
>
> I'm sure this idea has come up in the past; many of my ideas are like
> that. The 'everything is a file' model is proverbial, but it was not
> so once upon a time. I'm sure the 'everything is a directory' model
> had its proponents in days gone by, just as functional languages did
> (and will again!). In fact, 'everything is a directory' is the man
> behind the curtain in LDAP.
>
> In the considered opinion of the list, is "everything is a directory"
> a big mess, a resource wasting fantasy, an idea whose time has come?
>

Reply via email to