On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 04:22:42PM +0100, Padraig Brady wrote:
> >Doesn't that count as bad design overloading a data field like that? For
> >all the same reasons that file extensions on windows are bad. A much
> >better, and cleaner idea is to store metadata about the file like on
> >macs.
> But wouldn't that expand the API a lot?
> I.E. instead of read("/path/file#resource_fork")
> you would have read_resourcefork("/path/file");
Confusion here - on a Mac, there's file metadata e.g. filetype and creator,
and there's the concept of two forks in a file - entirely different things,
although a resource fork is often used for super meta data, so to speak e.g.
a files icon etc. But on a MacOS application, for instance, the data fork is
empty - all the applications code is in code resources in the resource fork.
It's quite an elegant system, but Linus doesn't like it so . . .
Niall
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
