Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT gulliver DOT qc DOT ca>
To: OpenDOS Developers List <opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: A few FS notions
In-Reply-To: <862593056.0521973.0@abwillms.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970502211912.8296D-100000@server.gulliver.qc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2 May 1997, Alaric B. Williams wrote:

> Consider the OO approach: a file has a set of methods. Leaving
> them empty means that the default behaviour is inherited. New
> behaviour inserted in there means that the file overrides the
> default behaviour, and can still call back to it.

Yes, I love OO! But as much as I'd like that, I fear the introduction of a
OO filesystem might require a complete system rewrite or almost... (at
least, to do it *correctly*!)

> Another way is to have standard COMMAND.COM commands in text
> fields. This isn't quite as powerful, but will be quicker;
> all it involves is passing the string to COMMAND.COM. Quite
> often the command will simply invoke a small program which
> does the real work, but simple things such as access logging
> can be acheived with:

I think something like that should be enough, controlled via ACLs...

Pierre Phaneuf

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/CM/E/IT/MU/P/TW d-(--)pu s+:- a--- C++++$ ULC++(++++)$>++++ P+>++
L++$>+++ E>+ W+(-)$ N+ K w---$ M-- PS+ PE+ Y-- PGP- t+ X+ R+>+++ tv
b++(+) DI+(++) D++ G e(+) h(+)>++ r++ y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------