One usage scenario of walkfs is to implement find, du, walk, rdup and
the like. Another usage [scenario] of walkfs, with the -s option, is to add
file
indexing to a
fileserver.
this seems more complicated than a straightforward
non-fileserver based implementation. why do you
need a
erik quanstrom wrote:
One usage scenario of walkfs is to implement find, du, walk, rdup and
the like. Another usage [scenario] of walkfs, with the -s option, is to add file
indexing to a
fileserver.
this seems more complicated than a straightforward
non-fileserver based implementation.
- walkfs can cache/reuse results from previous runs
that is a bad idea. caching is just going to cause trouble.
- no more hassle with space or other special characters in filenames
what? if the underlying fs doesn't want to do spaces, you
can't force it.
- inaccessible parts of the
walk, find, locate and friends try to cope with exploring filesystem
metadata at breadth
and length effectively, efficiently and with controlled time/space
consumption.
Proposal: walkfs(4) (or finds, or indexfs, or sphinx, or ...)
walkfs serves a filesystem tree similar to network devices. A
