From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262227AbUK3RIu (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:08:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262207AbUK3RFf (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:05:35 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]:50868 "EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262227AbUK3RDK (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:03:10 -0500 Message-ID: <41ACA7C9.1070001@namesys.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:03:05 -0800 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Horst von Brand CC: Peter Foldiak , Christian Mayrhuber , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Paolo Ciarrocchi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: file as a directory References: <200411301631.iAUGVT8h007823@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> In-Reply-To: <200411301631.iAUGVT8h007823@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.85.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Horst von Brand wrote: >Peter Foldiak said: > > >>On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 14:51, Horst von Brand wrote: >> >> >>>>I was suggesting this idea mainly form XML files, where the tags define >>>>the parts clearly. >>>> >>>> > > > >>>Use a XML parsing library then. >>> >>> > > > >>But namespace unification is important, >> >> > >Why? Directories are directories, files are files, file contents is file >contents. Mixing them up is a bad idea. Sure, you could build a filesystem >of sorts (perhaps more in the vein of persistent programming, or even data >base systems) where there simply is no distinction (because there are no >differences to show), but that is something different. > > This is kind of like explaining to people around the office that they could ever possibly need a disk drive of more than 10mb back in 1982 or so. I could not convince them then, Peter, you cannot convince this guy now, just spend the time coding it instead. Peter, you expect people to understand the value of features they have never used. Works for some of them. Only some of them. > > >> and to unify the namespace, you >>have to use the same syntax. I guess you disagree with me on that. (If >>not, how would you do it?) >> >> > >I'd go one level up: Eliminate the distinctions that bother you, not try to >patch over them. > > Are you saying you'd rewrite xml to put separate objects in separate files?