> On May 10, 2013, 9:09 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/include/stout/os.hpp, line 900 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/diff/1/?file=290383#file290383line900> > > > > I'd prefer calling this 'mv' instead of 'rename' even though we are > > using the 'rename' syscall. Any reason not to do that? > > Vinod Kone wrote: > First, I think its more clear that a wrapper is called the same as what C > function it is wrapping, especially if its only doing one thing. Second, 'mv' > and 'rename' have different semantics depending on whether the destination is > on a different file system ('mv' succeeds where as 'rename' fails). So I > don't want this function to give a wrong illusion on what it is doing. Makes > sense?
Well it seems we want to ultimately provide the same behavior as mv, no? Maybe that means only implementing the essential rename() bit, and expanding as we see fit? http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/mv.html It seems like users of os:: will be looking for a mv operation, and hoping for the same semantics eventually. - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/#review20431 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 10, 2013, 7:17 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 10, 2013, 7:17 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/include/stout/os.hpp > c71ae9ed32af2a14dc7b9b34521cb5ea6025235c > third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/tests/os_tests.cpp > 047778d05ebbbefd85e4a163dbb6ab8445edfb7f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
