Well, I expected people who wants extended attributes would want resource forks (double yuck) and who knows what else.
Actually I think something like this was russ' suggestion at IWP9 to handle things like locking, symlinks and other PoSix junk. All that would be needed is a well defined convention, and then clients who cared about such extra 'features' could use them without changing 9p, existing servers or clients (which don't care about this 'features'). uriel On 9/3/07, Joel C. Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Disgusting indeed, but it might even work with no changes to 9P; it > > might confuse some clients, but doesn't sound easily doable given some > > basic naming conventions (of course, then you lose the possibility to > > cd into that dir and run ls there, which is the main reason I thought > > an extension to the file name would make more sense) > > You don't want to run ls, remember. The point of this exercise is to > conceptually add some form of metadata to files. All that's needed > (if that!) is a set of attribute=value pairs, which can all be kept in > a single 'file' with a known name and predetermined format. (Or a > database with multiple file-like 'views', so meta.txt, meta.csv, and > meta.xml are all available. Ick.) > > --Joel >
