Elliott Mitchell wrote on Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:55:54 -0700 (PDT): > > From: Grant Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I like "metas". > > Chalk me up as neutral about the name itself. That is I'm neutral about > ".metas" or "..metas", I'm firmly against using "metas" (or any other > name) without at least a leading period. I suspect Linus et al might very > well reject such a FS because this would be a fatal flaw. I'm concerned > about using such a short and therefore precious name for filesystem > functions, but OTOH it might well be accessed often by a user and > therefore appropriate.
I agree, it needs to start with a period. I'd also drop the idea of having a separate directory for metadata and just use a common name prefix. ".meta.mime" for example, rather than ".meta/mime". I'm probably repeating myself, but the trouble is that the .meta directory isn't a full directory - you can't add attributes to it. In BeOS, that's useful - the directory's GUI window coordinates are stored as attributes on the directory. I'd like to use the standard GUI file explorer to also check on attributes! With a .meta directory, it seems good in a psychological organizational way but it breaks the object model. That breakage will cause more programming annoyances than using a prefix instead, in my humble opinion. - Alex
