RE: [boost] Filesystem attributes

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-03 17:38:55

At 05:26 PM 3/3/2002, Jan Langer wrote:

 >On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Beman Dawes wrote:
 >>And I'm not either, particularly for most of the attributes, which may
 >vary
 >>from system to system.
 >>
 >>But there are a few basic attributes (name, directory path, full path 
and
 >>is_directory) which IMO should be required, and should be accessible 
with
 >>very straightforward syntax.  Otherwise people will make mistakes, write
 >>non-portable code, and it will get messy.
 >
 >one question: is the directory_entry and the attribute cache the same
 >object in your approach? and if yes, why? if no, i am convinced and do
 >agree with it.

I hadn't decided, but was more-or-less assuming they would be different.

A related point:  Did we decide on write-through or explicit-commit 
semantics for attributes?

There was discussion that explicit-commit semantics were needed, rather 
than the write-through semantics in Dietmar's original implementation (if I 
read the code correctly:-)  But was it ever resolved for sure and if so 
what is the rationale?

Is the rationale just efficiency over slow connections, or is there also a 
fear that write-through of individual attributes could create an 
inconsistent file state (and thus get tossed by the OS)?

--Beman