On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Kees Grinwis <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether it is possible, but we could use a separate name > for the FS (required, due to our registration with ROL/ROOL) and still > allow alternatives, such as HostFS, via a setting? You only mean the FS specifier I guess. It could be possible but I don't recommend it. In this case I think It's better to have hard defined standard especially for expansion programs who are going to interact with our FS in the future. > I'm not sure how hard it would be to accomplish this, but this would > give us the best of both worlds: We have an official registration and > we still have the possibility to use existing VRPC directory trees... It only becomes a problem if you use hard paths in the VRPC directory and it still doesn't solve the problem that our FS doesn't convert dot file extensions. So you must already VRPC have configured not to store file with extensions at start. Greetings, Dick _______________________________________________ Rpcemu mailing list [email protected] http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu
