From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-22 10:43:39
At 05:53 PM 11/21/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Good questions. For both reference-counted and symbolic links, and for
>> every operation, we need to know if the operation has shallow or deep
>You keep talking about "reference-counted and symbolic links" but these
>do not belong in the same sentence, as has already been pointed out.
>A "link" is Unix terminology for a directory entry. A directory entry
>points to an i-node which has a reference count. This is why the delete
>operation is called "unlink", it removes the directory entry, but not
>necessarily the file. When you have two directory entries for the same
>file, both are equal. It doesn't matter which one came first.
Sure. And although the terminology is a bit different, the same description
applies to NTFS.
>It doesn't make sense to talk about shallow or deep semantics here.
That's usually correct, but there are a few query operations where the
shallow/deep issue might matter, depending on the operating system.
Size/date/time being examples.
>A symbolic link is a special kind of directory entry that points to
That's correct for POSIX, if I understand the POSIX docs correctly.
But on NTFS (and perhaps other Windows file systems) it gets much murkier.
The feature roughly equivalent to a POSIX symbolic link is the shortcut
file (with an extension of .lnk, although you can add additional extensions
via the registry). Shortcut files appear to be application features rather
than operating system features. I just read that earlier this morning, and
it would explain why some programs resolve shortcuts and some don't, why
the shortcuts created by Windows Explorer appear to function differently
that the shortcuts created by ln -s, and why the Windows Platform SDK
doesn't appear to have API calls directly equivalent to the POSIX
symlink(), lstat(), etc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk