From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S263238AbVFXIdT@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S263238AbVFXIdT (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:33:19 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263234AbVFXI1B
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:27:01 -0400
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]:44221 "EHLO
	rwcrmhc13.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S263224AbVFXIXQ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:23:16 -0400
Message-ID: <42BBC2EC.2080000@namesys.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:23:08 -0700
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lincoln Dale <ltd@cisco.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>,
       Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>,
       Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       ReiserFS List <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins
References: <200506231924.j5NJOvLA031008@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl>	 <42BB31E9.50805@slaphack.com> <1119570225.18655.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42BB5E1A.70903@namesys.com> <42BB7083.2070107@cisco.com> <42BBAD0F.2040802@namesys.com> <42BBB1FA.7070400@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <42BBB1FA.7070400@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.1.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Lincoln Dale wrote:

>
>> Now, if his target is reduced to whether we can eliminate a function
>> indirection, and whether we can review the code together and see if it
>> is easy to extend plugins and pluginids to other filesystems by finding
>> places to make it more generic and accepting of per filesystem plugins,
>> especially if it is not tied to going into 2.6.13, well, that is the
>> conversation I would have liked to have had.
>>
>>  
>>
> fantastic - some common ground.
> any reason WHY there has to be an abstraction of 'pluginid' when in
> theory VFS operations can already provide the necessary abstraction on
> a per-object basis?

VFS supplies instances, plugins are classes.  If a language can
instantiate an object, that does not eliminate the value of being able
to create classes.

Does it make sense to you now?