Can I just remind everyone that (IMO) we shouldn't just be considering filesystems here? I think it would be a pretty useful feature to have a general tree manipulation interface, and then this could be applied to filesystems, or XML, or LDAP, or SQL (although this doesn't map so well), or whatever.

        I guess the way I see it, you'd have something like this:

role Tree::Node {...}
role Filesystem::Node inherits from Tree::Node {...}
role Filesystem::Directory inherits from Filesystem::Node {...}
class Filesystem::File does Filesystem::Node { # Interface, like DBI
        has $implementation handles *;

        $implementation = Filesystem::File::XML->new();
class Filesystem::File::XML inherits from Filesystem::File::Base {...}

In the case of Filesystem::Node, you would define some standard attribute names (eg. "owner", "is_readable"), but then they would be accessible through the standard Tree::Node.get_attribute() interface. And the standard Tree::Node.get_children() would be implemented by Filesystem::File as something to fetch the contents of the file; in the case of Filesystem::XMLFile, it would turn the contents into a tree of XML nodes.

I agree about the different levels of abstractions, but just wanted to put in a plug for this one as one that I like.


| Name: Tim Nelson                 | Because the Creator is,        |
| E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]    | I am                           |

Version 3.12
GCS d+++ s+: a- C++$ U+++$ P+++$ L+++ E- W+ N+ w--- V- PE(+) Y+>++ PGP->+++ R(+) !tv b++ DI++++ D G+ e++>++++ h! y-

Reply via email to