> There is no significant difference on the client side (instead of calling a > method on the AFS, it calls a method on the FileDescriptor), it may simplify > a bit some functions to just accept a FileDescriptor if they only need such > a thing (instead of always passing an AFS + FD), and the multiplex > implementation becomes simpler.
The only issue I have with it is that code using the virtual fs then becomes quiet a bit different from code that is not using it. Code not using it has a FD that is a simple POD that is copied by value. Code using the virtual fs has a much more complex object that needs to be passed by pointer. A filesystem could even use a virtual FD implementation if it wanted to. Just make the FD it receives an index into a table. That way using a virtual file per file object is an implementation detail of that file system. In the end, I guess it is a question of preference. Since I have no better objections than "it looks odd", it is fine to go that way if people actually using the feature prefer it. Maybe then just call it a FileObject instead of a FileDescriptor to avoid confusion with the simple ints we are used to? Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
