[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd

From: Jonathan S. Shapiro
Subject: Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:08:05 -0500

On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 12:43 +0100, Patrick Negre wrote: 
> Jonathan S. says :
> > They will see whatever type was bound for the name they open. In your
> > example above, if they open foo.tar.bz, they will see a file. If a
> > translator has bound "foo" to a directory view on the same object,
> > attempts to open "foo" will see a directory.
> Is it really a good idea to create new name in the filesystem tree ? I mean, 
> a 
> file must have only one path, create new nodes with binding is confusing.

Why must a file only have one path? This seems like a completely
artificial and unnecessary restriction.

> I don't understand the need of binding the "foo.tar.bz" in a directory "foo".
> Isn't it just possible to the application who need the tree view of 
> foo.tar.bz 
> to access it as a directory ?

Yes, it is possible to do that, but if a second application needs to
reference the content, you either need to hand it the descriptor or a
path to that content. If you need a path, you need to make a binding.

In the case of the Windows setup.exe example, the problem is that setup
discovers the location of the distribution directory by computing the
path to the setup.exe binary, so if you have


the setup program assumes that the rest of the installation is described
by a file


and any needed files can be found underneath foo/bar/

If the distribution was shipped as a ZIP file, then if you do NOT do a
binding there is only foo/bar.zip, so attempts to open the other files

The reason to add the binding is to allow oblivious programs to operate
naturally. It is not a requirement if all you want to do is browse.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]