Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 19:21:45 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <k3040e4 AT wildsau DOT idv-edu DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at>
cc: Randy Maas <randym AT acm DOT org>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: proposed fsext changes
In-Reply-To: <199711261656.RAA25208@wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971126191631.3206B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:

> If you want to write a pipe emulator or a RAM disk, fine, but
> why blow up the standard library with lots of callbacks to your 
> application instead of just going the other way round ?

I won't usurp Randy's joy of explaining the rationale, but in general, 
filesystem extensions cannot be considered complete without hooks for all 
the primitive functions, because otherwise the hook won't be transparent.  
The primitives include dup2, link, unlink and others.

As for the bloat, where do you see it?  If you don't install any of the 
hook, the only bloat is that the low-level functions test whether they 
were installed or not.