🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)

In article <541@usenix.ORG> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In the filesystem abstraction, you open a filename in one stage. [...]
>
>You can easily construct other examples, but one should be enough to
>convince you that open() just isn't sufficiently general for everything
>that you might read() or write().

What prevents us from inventing a few additional filesystem operations
that ARE general enough?

I think the important thing about the filesystem abstraction that is being
debated here, is the idea of a common name space, and that idea does not
require open() to be an indivicible operation, and it does not require that
open() must be the only way to associate a file descriptor to a named object,
as long as there is only one name space.
-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!ske

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 133