Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-13 15:16:46

At 02:02 PM 9/13/2002, Eric Woodruff wrote:

>Is it possible to get a virtual 'root' similar to what chroot in does?
>Though, this would require an instance of a file system instead of using
>static methods/functions in the namespace.

In earlier designs there were filesystem objects and thus they could have
that sort of behavior.

But the degree of complication introduced was completely out of proportion
to the small increase in functionality. Furthermore, it was hard to come up
with real world use cases where there would be any practical benefit to
portable programs.

In past discussions people asked for functionality that would make the
Filesystem Library better for use with a specific operating system, but
would not be portable to other O/S's. The intent of the library isn't to
provide a better API to a specific operating system, so I resist
suggestions that don't seem to be portable. Creating some kind of abstract
filesystem on top of the native filesystem is well beyond the current

That being said, I think there is room for additional functionality in the
area of the "root" concept, the "current directory" concept, "absolute" vs
"relative" paths, and probably other areas. But because of the portability
issues, these features can't be designed in a vaccuum. They require
research. I'd like to see the basic library nailed down first.

>Maybe a process would want to globally change it's root so that it can
>with relative directories only.

I'm pretty much dead set against global variables, as are a lot of other
programmers. I would want to see the root associated with some object.

But a

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at