>
Or Botton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>hm.. i've been thinking. Maybe such a server software should
>support LFN by using the method that 4DOS uses? (using a
>file called descript.ion , not by messing with the FAT.)
>
>Explanation for people who dont understand what i'm talking about:
>A certain shell software for DOS (which I think is 4DOS) is capable
>of "Long file name" support, but not by using the Windows 95 method.
>In the directory where files with LFN are present, there is also
>a file called descript.ion . The original files still use short-name
>(8.3 type), and the full "long name" is kept in the descript.ion
>file. This way you can maintain files with LFN without messing
>with the FAT.
Current versions of 4DOS do use the Win95 long-filename API when it's
present, but revert to DESCRIPT.ION when it isn't.
For my money, the 4DOS description-file method was *vastly* superior to
Microsoft's LFN kludge. It caused no incompatibilities with low-level
disk software; copying the descriptions was trivial; it didn't clutter
up directories (including the root!) with dozens of additional entries;
and it was truly backwards compatible. It was also better documented.
My idea for a clever utility would be a TSR to map Microsoft's LFN API
to 4DOS description files. Should allow you to run LFN-aware programs
under DOS, without the implicit risks of sector-level sector skulduggery.
No, I'm not going to try to write it myself; but I wouldn't mind if
someone else did. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
