From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-03 17:38:55
At 05:26 PM 3/3/2002, Jan Langer wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>And I'm not either, particularly for most of the attributes, which may
>vary
>>from system to system.
>>
>>But there are a few basic attributes (name, directory path, full path
and
>>is_directory) which IMO should be required, and should be accessible
with
>>very straightforward syntax. Otherwise people will make mistakes, write
>>non-portable code, and it will get messy.
>
>one question: is the directory_entry and the attribute cache the same
>object in your approach? and if yes, why? if no, i am convinced and do
>agree with it.
I hadn't decided, but was more-or-less assuming they would be different.
A related point: Did we decide on write-through or explicit-commit
semantics for attributes?
There was discussion that explicit-commit semantics were needed, rather
than the write-through semantics in Dietmar's original implementation (if I
read the code correctly:-) But was it ever resolved for sure and if so
what is the rationale?
Is the rationale just efficiency over slow connections, or is there also a
fear that write-through of individual attributes could create an
inconsistent file state (and thus get tossed by the OS)?
--Beman