On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:23:03PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-03-01, Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments?
I didn't bother to read all the technical explanation in detail,
I thought it would be nice to have something concrete to discuss, but it
was probably a bit early!
(Since the other message seems to have stuck in some queye, I'll just
reply again here, although I should be replying to myself.)
tuomov wrote:
But having to use some arcane (numeric) identifiers for persistent
access to files instead of their paths drifts too much away from
unixland into
On 2007-03-02, Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if I've moved too far away from your idea for the
differences to be reconciled, I hope I haven't and we can bring things
back together again.
I think you're much closer to the usual metadata-based DB file
systems than my approach,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:06:44PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Come to think of it, perhaps people are going the wrong way
about database file systems: implementing them on top of a
conventional FS, giving useless names to the files under the
database file system's control. Perhaps it would
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:51:51PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-03-02, Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And how do you ensure that every program can interact with every file?
Mounting the naming system somewhere in the global namespace?
Or maybe URL-style stuff, if we didn't have
On 2007-03-02, Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Things like tab completion and
working directory only really work when you have something with similar
semantics to a hierarchical file system and can afford to expose the
interface.
The concept of a directory does not really apply, but SetFS
