Message-Id: <199705051203.OAA05817@grendel.sylaba.poznan.pl>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
From: "Mark Habersack" <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Organization: PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins)
To: "Tim Bird" <tbird AT caldera DOT com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 14:04:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: A few FS notions
Reply-to: grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
CC: opendos AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <9705011129.ZM8480@caldera.com>
References: chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers)        "Re: A few FS notions" (Apr 30,  7:37pm)
Precedence: bulk

Once upon a time (on  1 May 97 at 11:29) Tim Bird said:

> > Okay, so what you are suggesting is that directory entries contain the
> > following things for files:
> 
> Yes (kind of).  Logically these attributes would be associated with a file
> (as if they came from the directory entry).  Physically, I would store them
> not in the dir entry but in a separate data file in the file system. Note
> that this would require a new file scanning call in the OS, to retrieve a
> reference to this other file (and/or a call to get an attribute value by
> name).
And what if the FS divided every file into two parts: "system" and "user"? 
First, the "leadin" would contain the resource data and second would be 
accessible to an application opening the file. This however puts certain 
limitation on the resource part of the file: it is not as flexible as a 
separate resource data file. But requires only one disk seek/access
------------
You're just a waste of time, you're just a babbling face, you're
just three sick holes that run like sores, you're fucking waste
you're like a slug on the floor, oh you're usless and ugly and
useless and ugly, and shiver and shake when I think of how you
make me hate.
---