John D. Heintz wrote:Okay, that is what I thought originally. That still means that user defined names and plugin defined names can in general conflict though.
Hans Reiser wrote:
Let me verify something: You are suggesting that the "metas" namespace be the entry point for all of the plugin namespaces? I had assumed that each plugin would create it's own. That does certainly reduce the scope of my problem.
It can use metas, but what it does is up to it. metas is a style convention.
I would have been much happier to hear some strategy would enable plugins names to disambiguate themselves from each other and user defined names. In practice you might be right that a few dozen plugins can be "officially" integrated without too much trouble. Also, this issue could be dealt with later as well - I don't think now is the only opportunity for addressing it.
this is the beauty of there being an official maintainer for reiserfs to handle such issues;-)
plugins are not created as easily as files;-), there will be few enough that I can manage the issue as it happensYes, in the short to medium term you are probably right that you can deal with these issues as they happen. I'd like there to be some better way of dealing with resolving conflicts from unified namespaces then always "ask Hans".
Does some sort of syntactic shorthand actually break the set theoretic naming system rules? Or is this just something you view as needless complexity?
Thanks for the replies,
John Heintz
