Message-ID: <399C26FA.799AA3DF@softhome.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:55:06 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: lt,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch: __internal_readlink()
References: <399BE30E DOT AA1F3E6C AT softhome DOT net> <6480-Thu17Aug2000172504+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <399BF9CB DOT 587F65E2 AT softhome DOT net> <4634-Thu17Aug2000195851+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> However, imagine that there are other handlers for other FSEXTs as
> well.  Those other handlers might (1) not be ready to cope with a NULL
> pathname, and (2) one of them might intercept the call before the
> readlink handler gets a chance (because of the order of registration
> of the hooks, upon which FSEXT doesn't give the application too much
> control).
> 
> In other words, if a certain handle has a handler registered, that
> handler should be called unconditionally and immediately, without
> trying the other handlers which might mistakenly catch a call whch
> isn't theirs.  __FSEXT_call_open_handlers cannot do that, but
> __FSEXT_get_function can.

So I was on the right path of thinking. Thanks, now it's clear.

> > Will the same handler do well in both cases?
> 
> I hope so.  
> Do you see any reason why it couldn't?  

Sigh, if I would know... I've just asked because I haven't
seen any other handler which was used like this.

> > When it comes to FSEXT, I feel less confident.
> 
> Me too ;-).

BTW, who has invented it? Who feels more confident than we here?

Laurynas