Hi Trond, I think your point that discussion of alternative ways of doing things which might ultimately be standardized reflects lack of understanding of the concept of standardization is ... a non-sequitur. I did state that the standard doesn't benefit from restricting the ability of implementations and applications from evolving new metadata conventions entirely above the file system. This claim is in no way radical, it's how everyone uses the file system already. Since I haven't violated any rule of netiquette or convention of polite discussion generally, forgive me for not going away. Regards, Matt ----- "Trond Myklebust" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > You've said that xattrs and named attributes are completely > different, but notwithstanding that, there seems to be logically quite > a bit of overlap. Clearly, the fact that the NFS protocol treats > named attributes as subfiles is a detail that the client need not > expose to applications. It also seems as if an xattr interface is > convenient for interacting with at a subset of named attributes (ones > with tractable length names/values). I mean, as I note, this is the > proplist, and that has been a very successful interface in a lot of > systems, going back a -long- ways. > > NO! GO AWAY!!!! > > Seriously, if you don't understand the concept of a standard, then go > away! > > Trond -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
