On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Rafael Espíndola < [email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > That's what I would have expected, too. > 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? > +1 > > Cheers, > Rafael >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
