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
>>from system to system.
>>But there are a few basic attributes (name, directory path, full path
>>is_directory) which IMO should be required, and should be accessible
>>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)?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk