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

[Ben Langmuir]

On Feb 14, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

I felt the same way originally, but these are both cases of passing by reference since the int is just a handle to a more complex object inside the operating system :)  The syntax of method calls is obviously very different though.

> 
> 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?

Good point, any objections to just calling it ‘File’?

Ben

> 
> Cheers,
> Rafael