Re: [boost] Re: Filesystem Library: Formal Review

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-14 12:26:48

At 12:43 PM 9/14/2002, Jaap Suter wrote:

 >Small question;
 >
 >would it be hard to write a 'package' implementation having the 
FileSystem
 >Library interface? What I mean is that you supply a file as a 'package of
 >files', which acts as a local file system. Packages ease distribution, 
and
 >having one interface for both normal file system handling, and dealing 
with
 >packages of files would be nice.
 >
 >However, possibly a 'package' system is beyond the scope of this library.
 >Maybe it deserves a library of its own. Giving it the same interface 
would
 >still be nice though.
 >
 >Anyway, just wondering how hard it would be.

I don't think it would be difficult, but I'm wondering about the utility.

Operating systems used to provide somewhat similar functionality 
themselves.  For example, the original IBM OS (and decedents like OS/390, 
z/OS, etc.) had something called a partitioned dataset, IIRC.

But when the true hierarchical operating systems came along, such a 
separate facility wasn't needed anymore because you could just create a 
directory as the 'package' and add files to it.

Perhaps what you are asking for is the ability to save/load a single file 
which contains all the files in a directory?

In any case, I think we need to move forward with a basic Filesystem 
Library so we have a firm foundation.  Then people can build whatever they 
want on top of it, and submit that functionality as either a separate 
library or an addition to the current library.  But last winter when 
various people proposed convenience functions, aspects became controversial 
and that derailed discussion of the basics.

As an example of the basics, is the path class OK?  Can/should the 
functionality be extended to include the concept of root directory and 
still stay portable?

--Beman