On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:28:47 +0100 (CET), Petri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Gregory J. Feig wrote:
>> petri.....which means that we don't have to worry about buggering
>> about with the file system (a lot of work) but just about coping with
>> and responding to (insome way) ADDITIONAL information tacked on to
>> whatever filesystem/filename we encounter in Arachne....???
> Uh, the LFN's are stored as *volume labels*, so you'll have to do stuff
> with the file system anyway. Or, you could always use the LFN libraries
> avaliable, but as said, they are a bit bad. :) But anyway, my point was
> just that the LFNs aren't part of the FAT standard, Arachne is a DOS
> program, DOS doesn't use LFNs (usually), and thus needn't Arachne
> either. =) Under Linux, though, long file names exist, but that's an
> entirely different story.....you just treat long and short file names
> equally. No special code required. =) (btw....how much work has been done
> on Arachne/linux? I forgot =P)
petri.........I think I miss-stated my point.....what I wanted to
say was....we are in DOS...we don not need to worry about LFN....
UNLESS we run into a situation where some site/OS/application is
pushing them upon us, and insisting that we acknowledge them, then
we only have to take them and truncate them any way we choose...
LFNs should not be a major hindrance to our using DOS worldwide..
gregy
-- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the
Ultimate Internet Client
