Re: [boost] [filesystem] proposal: treat reparse files as regular files

Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] proposal: treat reparse files as regular files
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-29 23:33:36

On 30/07/2015 14:49, Paul Harris wrote:
> On 29 July 2015 at 14:09, Gavin Lambert <gavinl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if it's current, but
>> http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2013/02/14/dfsr-reparse-point-support-or-avoiding-schr-246-dinger-s-file.aspx
>> seems to suggest the following behaviour as reasonable:
>>
>>   - treating IO_REPARSE_TAG_MOUNT_POINT as directory symlinks
>>   - treating IO_REPARSE_TAG_SYMLINK as symlinks
>>   - treating IO_REPARSE_TAG_DEDUP, IO_REPARSE_TAG_SIS, and
>> IO_REPARSE_TAG_HSM as regular files
>>   - treating any other tag as something to be ignored (in most cases)
>>
>>
> I believe the last point is wrong in our context.  That blog is talking
> about DFS Replication, which is a very special case for reading files.  The
> fallback ("dehydrating and rehydrating files") is something they'd rather
> not do because it would be unpacking files out of 3rd party archival
> areas.  They'd rather not read and copy content if they can avoid it.
[...]
> So I would have written that last point as:
> - treating any other tag as a regular file

If you have a look at the very next paragraph in the quoted message, 
that's what I said. :)

(The part you quoted was repeating what the blog said, not as a 
recommendation for Boost library behaviour.)