Boost logo

Boost :

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
>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,
>having one interface for both normal file system handling, and dealing
>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
>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?


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