Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 17:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: Mark Habersack <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Another look at FS notions
In-Reply-To: <199705060826.KAA22475@grendel.sylaba.poznan.pl>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970507173440.20163B-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 May 1997, Mark Habersack wrote:

> > >     2.4) Suggestion for filesystem that would be able to
> > >           use other OS's filesystems like the Mac's.
> > 
> > Yes, an IFS (installable filesystem) layer.  NOT the same as what
> > is allready there, but a NEW layer which provides for services
> > that do not currently exist in DOS.  The new services won't break
> > old programs, and a name mangler (ala mach) will present LFN's
> > and mixed case names to legacy apps for back-compatibility.
> We could use Linux VFS specs here. They are well thought and shouldn't be 
> hard to implement on DOS.

Sounds good.
 
> > > >  3) Suggestion to asscociate data files with programs
> > >       (aka Windows)
> > 
> > Yes, 4DOS does this allready.  For example:
> > 
> > C:\> SET .WAV=C:\SB16\WPLAY.EXE
> > C:\> CATSCRM.WAV
> > 
> > WPLAY V1.00 Press esc to stop playback....
> > 
> > (The above is a simulated example not a screenshot.
> > 
> > IMHO these associations belong in the command interpreter, NOT in
> > the filesystem.  I can think of countless reasons why they
> > shouldn't be in the filesystem, and not a single reason why not
> > in the command processor.
> I wouldn't use this approach. This allows for one association for a single 
> extension. Yet I've seen several programs that use .txt extension for totally 
> different purpose than to store ASCII text. A better way is to use registered 
> applications tags in the dirent.

Well, I don't particularly use associations of any kind very much
anyways, and the 4DOS method works good enough for me anyways.  I
realize though that others may want it in the FS, and if it is
done in the FS, it should definately be a configurable option,
(as are most of our additions) and not hard-coded.

Agreed?


Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
Email: mharris at blackwidow.saultc.on.ca  <-- Spam proof address

URL: Sun Microsystems                    http://www.sun.com