> The operating system provides system calls that let us "move" files, that > is, in most cases the file is renamed. The end user goes "mv a b", and the > file is moved, from the user's point of view. > > But the program "mv" doesn't actually move a file if it's across different > file systems or partitions. It copies the file, and deletes the original. > > Should the operating system provide system calls for "moving" files also > across file systems, just because we like to use the command "mv"? >
Well, I always thought this argument will fork for me, not for the people agains MOVE, but apparently it really depends on point of view. Andy, reading your letter, I have the impression that life would be easier without moving files, since both necessary atoms - copy and delete - are already there. So can you really imagine working with today's filesystems without REAL move system call? It would be such a waste of resources! What you described is exactly what I want - operating system provides you with move system call, and where it is not possible, it will fake it by copying/deleting the file. That's exactly what I want from IMAP. There are two possible solutions: 1. We put MOVE command directly in the RFC. Then all server programmers are supposed to implement it, and for the mail stores, which do not allow it, fake it by implementing copying and deleting. 2. We make it an extension avaliable via CAPABILITY after login. Then only some client programmers use it, if they know how to use it. All others stay within their world of copy/store and hopefully wait for an expunge, unless server provides UID EXPUNGE, which I've just got to know about it. But even so, I wouldn't cancel my previous post - I still want to have efficient implementations, which COPY/STORE/UID EXPUNGE does not allow. I want to move, not copy, in short ;-) In the end, it all comes to important reference implementation. Preferably in some widely used server, be it UW IMAP or Cyrus IMAP. Otherwise the whole stuff is wasted, for nobody will implement "yet another server extension" in clients unless 50% of servers do not support it. That's why I'm so interested in pushing this case forward through this forum. If Mark agrees on that and support would go to c-client, people would start using it immediately. If not, then we've been just wasting bandwidth of internet links with those posts. Cheers, Marek.
