There is always another way to do it.

"receiving a long file name in a long file name format;
storing the received long file name in a first file entry of the tree
structure along with a file storage indicator indicating the location
of the file in the memory;
automatically generating a short file name in a short file name format; and
storing the generated short file name in a second file entry of the
tree structure along with the file storage indicator indicating the
location of the file in the memory, the second file entry being
different from the first file entry; and "

now I dont understand legalees but I speak geek
this is talking about storing values in tree, I am assuming thats is
in the FAT itself

So why cant we just create a "database/table - file" that allows
lookup in a second area, either a file on
the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the
file/directory "ID" and store that in the database table completely
separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we
are using a different method and system we are safe.

in that database/table we could also add fields for whatever we want.
could even extend it to give linux like attributes.
to help with porting etc

then in the kernal FAT code go lookup values in that table "intercept"
calls and redirect them to and from our storage.
instead of FAT. if we need to sync them make that a separate TSR and
keep it out of the Kernel.

same result different method.

I could be way off base here not knowing DOS programming nor
legaleese. But still different method and system
is still different.

I would expect this type of thinking to defeat the patent.

So educate me why am I wrong. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Reply via email to