I know I'm stepping into a minefield, but I just can't help putting in
my 2 pennies. :-)
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 12:02 11/12/01, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >What would have happened if set theory had not just sets and elements, but
> >sets, elements, extended-attributes, and streams, and you could not use
> >the same operators on streams that you use on elements? It would have
> >been crap as a theoretical model. It does real damage when you add things
> >that require different operators to the set of primitives. Closure is
> >extremely important to design. Don't do this.
>
> Since we are going into analogies: You don't use a hammer to affix a screw
> and neither do you use a screwdriver to affix a nail...at least I don't. I
> think you are trying to use a large sledge hammer to put together things
> which do not fit together thus breaking them in the process. To use your
> own words: Don't do this. (-; Each is distinct and should be treated as
> such. </me ducks>
I agree with Anton. Files have certain characteristics that we all
know and love, stream-style attributes have pretty-much those same
characteristics. IMHO, we would like EAs to have a different set of
characteristics so that the application programmer has different tools
in her toolbox. To continue the analogy: "if all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail". Give someone that _already has_ a hammer
a screwdriver and they will be confused for a while but will end up
happier than if you gave them a "better hammer".
Thanks,
Curtis
--
Curtis Anderson curtis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|