[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Unionmount. Basic details

From: Carl Fredrik Hammar
Subject: Re: Unionmount. Basic details
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:57:12 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)


On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:48:13PM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:03:45PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:35:07PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > Also, I'm not aware of anybody still doing any changes to unionfs
> > > :-)
> [...]
> > Also, in many ways unionfs seems like an good candidate to make use of
> > libmob which I'm working on.  Making that that change would hopefully
> > not be too extensive, but it would not be trivial.
> The changes necessary to handle mobility most likely won't touch the
> actual merging code, but rather all the other stuff regarding startup
> etc. -- i.e. exactly the stuff that will differ between unionmount and
> unionfs anyways.

I was actually referring to making the merging code mobile, as well
as loading mobile objects from the unioned translators.  And both
changes would touch the merging code, loading objects would be fairly
superficial, but making code mobile might require more substantial
changes.  For instance, avoiding use of non-constant globals.

> Also, as a general rule, it is a *very* bad idea to base current design
> decisions on possible future prospects... A typical case of YAGNI.

Oh, I agree.  I only mentioned it to counter the assumption that no
changes will be made to unionfs.  Sharing code is a good thing, perhaps
not initially, but certainly eventually.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]