Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] a simple linux registry

Expand Messages
  • Beni Cherniavsky
    ... If it becomes a problem, ReiserFS is definitely a solution. Enabling this sort of things is the purpose that initially motivated ReiserFS. ... I find the
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 30 6:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Tzafrir Cohen wrote on 2004-04-11:
      > I saw an interesting project lately: a Perfect Configuration System
      > [tm], but designed with simplicity in mind: Each key resides in its own
      > text file, and the registry sits in its own tree structure.
      >
      > http://registry.sourceforge.net/
      >
      > The only disatvantages I can think of is the disk space consumption.
      > I wonder How much can ReiserFS help here? XFS?
      >
      If it becomes a problem, ReiserFS is definitely a solution. Enabling
      this sort of things is the purpose that initially motivated ReiserFS.

      > But the atvantages are obvious: everything remains a file:
      >
      > * can use whaever permission scheme is used on the system
      > * moving a subtree is an atomic operation.
      > * I wonder if symlinks are sensible
      > * Can be easily manipulated with the tools we all know
      >
      > Comments? Flames? Will you use it in your own project?
      >
      I find the key format to be suboptimal.

      - What's that about 20..39 for binary formats and 40..254 for text
      formats? Why?!? Why not use something extensible, like names?
      Why not use something established, like MIME types?

      - I don't think a standard header would do anybody good. Without a
      header, existing file types could be used with full support from
      existing tools (think images - how many image viewers skip everything
      until ``<DATA>``?).

      - Without a header, we don't need the `rg` command. `ls`, `cat`,
      etc., SHOULD be directly useful on the "registry", otherwise you
      lose half the benefits.

      Let's see what it takes to get rid of the header:

      - Format version - not relevant if there is no registry format.

      - Data type & comments - if you need these at all, it makes more
      sense to use a gconf-like model where the expected type and
      key meaning documentation are stored separately as a "scheme".
      That way a user overwriting the key won't lose the documentation.
      That's good.

      - If you do need the metadata per-instance of the key, the ideal
      option would be to use subfiles of the file, as will be possible
      in reiserfs4 (any file also behaves as a directory). Otherwise,
      less beautiful arrangements are possible...

      That's it - no headers! No headers => no need for a special tool and
      to a great extent even no need for a library!


      --
      Beni Cherniavsky <cben@...>
      Note: I can only read email on week-ends...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.