Re: [boost] Name checking in filesystem

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-03 17:29:14

At 10:20 AM 10/2/2004, Walter Landry wrote:

 >If I so desired, I could mount HFS+, BeFS, JFS, FFS, BFS, ADFS, FAT,
 >VFAT, NTFS, ext2/3, XFS, UMSDOS, Reiserfs, ISO 9660, and UDF on my
 >machine.  Which one is "native"?

Any of those can be "native", since "native" refers to the grammar used by 
paths rather than which type of file system is mounted.

 >If the intent is make sure that all paths can actually be accessed on
 >the machine, then you don't need to do any checks.  The operating
 >system does that for you.  If you are not actually opening files, then
 >perhaps you don't need this check anyway?

That's correct, however, some applications wish to check cases where files 
are not being opened, or are only opened on certain conditions.

 >Besides, doing any checking implies a (perhaps mild) performance hit,

That's true, although the hit is so minor it is not nearly as important a 
consideration as the other points you bring up.

 >and I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get rid of something
 >I don't need.
 >
 >> Either of those would be breaking changes for some current programs 
which
 >
 >> use the library, and we would have to figure a way to deal with that.
 >
 >A compile-time option?  Users who want the old behavior can compile
 >with BOOST_FILESYSTEM_PORTABLE_DEFAULT defined.

That would help the transition. Also, programs which currently change the 
default to "no_check" would not absolutely have to be changed; the line of 
code changing the default becomes redundant but is functionally harmless.

Thanks,

--Beman