A common VFS and a Common conf-system (Was: namespacing)

[Mike Hearn]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:02:34 +0100, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> I think "not really" is captured quite nicely by the word "virtual"

Excellent point. I'll shut up now ;)
 
What I'd like to avoid is the Windows situation where there are two VFS
systems, but only one (the kernel level VFS) is used. The other, the
Explorer/desktop/shell level VFS is rarely used.

MacOS X seems to have gone in the direction of a kernel-level VFS system
only. So it's worth having these discussions, even if the eventual
conclusion is that a D-VFS makes absolute sense.

Hopefully the reason behind the Windows problem was that the Win32
desktop level VFS API is horrid both to use as a client and a plugin, and
so we can achieve much higher usage by providing a nicer and more
widespread API (as opposed to some fundamental property of kernel vs
desktop level VFS systems).

thanks -mike