Re: abstract file (support multi-part)

[Mo McKinlay <mmckinlay _at_ gnu.org>]

Today, James Sutherland <jas88 _at_ cam.ac.uk> wrote:

  > That all depends on your viewpoint. If you fix the two major flaws in
  > NTFS's approach, what you are actually left with are just files. Files
  > which have part of their name in common with other files, yes - but does
  > that really matter to anyone?
  
What you are left with is a file made up of more than one part. Not
multiple files. And not fixing the "two major flaws in NTFS's approach" -
it's certainly the first I've heard of them, and something that must be
shared by any other existing implementation of the same thing, considering
what they have in common.


  > Not really. These are NOT parts of a single file: they are independent
  > blocks of data with names, living in a directory.

No. They ARE parts of a single file. If they were independent blocks of
data with names living in a directory, then they WOULD be files,
yes. However, they are not.

I don't want to sound like I'm disputing everything you say for the sake
of it (honestly, this isn't the case) - but there are fundamental  
differences between files and named streams/forks, and they must be
treated as such.

-- 
Mo McKinlay             Chief Software Architect          inter/open Labs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG Key: pub  1024D/76A275F9 2000-07-22 Mo McKinlay <mmckinlay _at_ gnu.org>






-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/