William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >I don't remember discussion of this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work/life/family >have been insane, so I could have missed it. > There wasn't one, at least not recently. I simply followed the design that was there, adding another flag.
>One of the 'good things' (tm) of APR is that we should be providing >identical behavior across platforms, without the programmer having >to go through platform choices. Now, some platforms provide that >any arbitrary file can be hidden, and I suppose it's goodness to be >able to create such files hidden, read only (advisory), etc. > >But wouldn't it be more effective if we found a way to abstract the >'dot file' concept from unix, such that those files would be automatically >hidden files on Win32/OS2/Netware? E.g. a file such as '.myfile', starting >with a period, would be tagged as hidden on those platforms that don't >provide the dot construct? > I wondered about that myself. But there are lots of semantic differences between .foo on *nix and a hidden foo on DOS derivatives. >I understand that SVN and some other apps want some granular >control. But your patch doesn't offer any APR_HAVE_HIDDEN_FILE >flags. Taking my theme above, we also might want to have >APR_HAVE_DOT_FILE_HIDDEN or something like that. > >Thoughts? > That's not such a bad idea, really. We'd have to add similar flags for executable (which doesn't exist at all on Windows or OS/2), and perhaps whether read-only is a flag or a permission state, etc. I know the apr_file_attrs_set interface was put together in a bit of a rush. I'm happy with it the way it is now, but it might not be the best way to do things. So, if we decide to add all sorts of flags, we might thing about the function itself, and whether it needs changes. -- Brane Äibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
