Re: Perils of Config Files (was DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd)

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 13:46 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:30:38PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > At Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:28:47 +0100,
> > Bas Wijnen <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > I don't like hard links to directories, but of course that would be the 
> > > most
> > > logical equivalent of two files binding the same (directory-implementing)
> > > facet.
> > 
> > Why don't you like them?  I would like to hear your concerns.
> 
> With two hard links, none of them is more important than the other.  That is,
> there is not one "real" file, and an extra link to it.  If you're lucky, that
> means a recursive search (such as find does) becomes very long because of that
> (because it traverses the directory several times instead of just once).  If
> you aren't lucky, there's a loop and find will never stop.

First: it is clear that we want symlinks. There is no proposal to remove
them.

Second: it is clear that an FS search can be implemented stupidly. This
is a reason to fix the search engine, but it is not a reason to pervert
the model of name binding.

In my oinion, an object is an object is an object. A directory should be
no less an object than a file is.

> I think it is useful to have a "raw" version of every file, for which you are
> certain that it contains all information that a translator can show about it.

I understand what you are saying here, and I agree that you want to have
some interface that conveys complete information about the object.

But this interface isn't "raw" from an implementation perspective. It
has an implementing server, just like any other facet. As Marcus says,
*all* facets are implemented by translators.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just trying to make sure that we
have our concepts straight in the discussion.

shap