[PATCH] Some infrastructure work for virtual file system (now on phab)

Rafael EspĂ­ndola rafael.espindola at gmail.com
Fri Feb 14 10:14:11 PST 2014


> There is no significant difference on the client side (instead of calling a
> method on the AFS, it calls a method on the FileDescriptor), it may simplify
> a bit some functions to just accept a FileDescriptor if they only need such
> a thing (instead of always passing an AFS + FD), and the multiplex
> implementation becomes simpler.

The only issue I have with it is that code using the virtual fs then
becomes quiet a bit different from code that is not using it. Code not
using it has a FD that is a simple POD that is copied by value. Code
using the virtual fs has a much more complex object that needs to be
passed by pointer.

A filesystem could even use a virtual FD implementation if it wanted
to. Just make the FD it receives an index into a table. That way using
a virtual file per file object is an implementation detail of that
file system.

In the end, I guess it is a question of preference. Since I have no
better objections than "it looks odd", it is fine to go that way if
people actually using the feature prefer it. Maybe then just call it a
FileObject instead of a FileDescriptor to avoid confusion with the
simple ints we are used to?

Cheers,
Rafael



More information about the cfe-commits mailing list