On Oct 24, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:11 +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:07 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> >>> Because the filesystem can do that when multiple applications are >>> involved without having to change them all to talk to each other and >>> invent custom protocol all the time just to keep some additional >>> metadata associated to a file.. >>> >> It's still a custom protocol. The applications need to agree on a data >> format and store it somewhere. The portable way to do this is to write >> an application library that they can link to. > > Perhaps I was unclear, you are never going to see that custom library > linked into the 'mv' command. > Why should my mv need to link into such a library? > So your approach makes little sense if the object is to maintain data > coherent when people need to handle files from random applications and > scripts and general system maintenance. > See the earlier admonition: store data that needs to be kept together either in the same file, or in the same directory. Use a library when different applications need to access the same data. > The data may be relevant only to a specific application. > > I am not saying you *have* to implement xattrs support, just saying that > it is not a mere 'applications should synchronize data themselves' > problem. _portable_ applications do not use xattrs. They are a Linuxism that is not described by either POSIX or any other similar standard. Trond-- 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
