2008/12/17 Sylvain Reynaud <Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr>:
Hi Steve and Andre,
I am the reviewer who criticised having different "service type names" for file and for directory (and also for logical file/logical directory).
I agree with Andre's suggestion of limiting this to dir (and also to logical dir I guess ?), because users use discovery services to discover the base directory they can access, while they use logical file catalogs to find files. Moreover, dir can be seen as a kind of implicit service with its open() and openDir() methods.
Regards, Sylvain
Yes but I think it is more fundamentally a file service - the directory is just one way of organising a bunch of files. The package is also the file package rather than the directory package. Steve
Andre Merzky a écrit :
[...]
I don't agree with this - it used to be your way round and it was criticised by one of our reviewers. You don't generally want to access directories and files by different services unless the underlying system used a universal naming schema such as AFS. However, checking the main spec again, I see you have no way of controlling which file/directory service you use - it is under the control of the implementation.
Well, the service is (explicitely or implicitely) specified by the URL you use to open the file/dir instance, like 'ftp://ftp.redhat.com/' points to a very specific ftp server/service.
So at least file, directory, logical-file and logical-directory should be removed from this table until such time as they provide a means of selecting the service to use.
Would it be ok for you if we remove 'file' then, and limit to 'dir'? Usually, one would like to discover services for whole file systems, not for individual files, I presume?
[...]