From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-25 16:35:12
At 03:08 PM 11/25/2002, Justus Schwartz wrote:
>* Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> [021125 03:26]:
>> The branch fs_review gives a snapshot of work-in-progress. It isn't
>> at the moment, but progress is definitely being made. I'm hoping to get
>> lot of work done on it this coming week.
>i looked into it, as i missed the review. i also looked at the mailing
>archives but could not find a posting mentioning something about
>there plans to support/handle them? it might be a good idea to change all
>calls to stat in the posix implementation to calls to lstat. and provide
>functions like is_symlink and symlink_to (i implemented them for a small
>script i wrote to test the lib)
>or maybe one could led the user of the lib choose wich behaviour she
>(defaulting to handling symlinks as files)
>sorry if i only missed the messages in the archives and this has all been
Links weren't really discussed before or during the formal review. Thomas
Witt and I discussed some aspects of them after the review, and mostly
deferred hard decisions into the future. We quickly convinced each other
that behavior in the presence of links needs to be explicitly addressed,
but neither of us knew the answers to various questions.
One thing we both did agree on was that the presence of links should never
be allowed to cause pathological behavior, like a program loop. POSIX
disallows loops (ELOOP error), but I haven't checked other OS's. I'll have
to do some more research before making any decisions.
Since some operating systems don't even support the concept of links, any
support in the filesystem library will have to be carefully crafted to work
portably. Yet at the same time, meet user expectations.
So your questions come at a good time; they need to be resolved in the next
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk