4 ms·

I found the URL addressing scheme of Redox to be fascinating, if perhaps slightly less user-friendly compared to files and file paths. https://doc.redox-os.org

I found the URL addressing scheme of Redox to be fascinating, if perhaps slightly less user-friendly compared to files and file paths. https://doc.redox-os.org/book/design/url/urls.html https://doc.redox-os.org/book/design/url/urls.html

hlandau 7y ago
Personally, Redox's use of URLs seemed like really bad design to me. It doesn't get simpler than the Unix path syntax. Having a scheme:// makes sense for URLs because you don't otherwise have any contextual information indicating how to access a resource. But this isn't the case for something like a virtual filesystem, where the total set of filesystems mounted under it - and their types - are all known to the system. There's no need for disk://foo when you can just have /dev/disk/foo.
- mpweiher 7y ago
  That's true when the namespace covers objects that are very similar to access, ideally identical. If that's not the case, I have found the scheme to be helpful to indicate what's going on.
  - hlandau 7y ago
    On *nix, you can always figure out what type of filesystem is mounted at a given prefix by typing `mount`. What the use of schemes does is make things needlessly inflexible, and embeds a dependency on the name of a filesystem provider inside consumers of that filesystem. It's akin to a Unix where filesystems can only be mounted in top-level directories /mnt, but not /mnt/foo, etc.; I don't see the appeal.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      I prefer to use `df -T /path/to/mount`, personally.
      - vageli 7y ago
        > I prefer to use `df -T /path/to/mount`, personally. Why?
        yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        Lets me specify a single file system; I don't think `mount` does that (unless I'm blind; possible).
        vageli 7y ago
        Mount lets you do this as well. mount -t type device destination_dir Unless I am missing something in your use case.
    - mpweiher 7y ago
      > schemes make things needlessly inflexible Not so. See file: :-)

hlandau 7y ago

Personally, Redox's use of URLs seemed like really bad design to me. It doesn't get simpler than the Unix path syntax. Having a scheme:// makes sense for URLs because you don't otherwise have any contextual information indicating how to access a resource. But this isn't the case for something like a virtual filesystem, where the total set of filesystems mounted under it - and their types - are all known to the system. There's no need for disk://foo when you can just have /dev/disk/foo.

mpweiher 7y ago
That's true when the namespace covers objects that are very similar to access, ideally identical. If that's not the case, I have found the scheme to be helpful to indicate what's going on.
- hlandau 7y ago
  On *nix, you can always figure out what type of filesystem is mounted at a given prefix by typing `mount`. What the use of schemes does is make things needlessly inflexible, and embeds a dependency on the name of a filesystem provider inside consumers of that filesystem. It's akin to a Unix where filesystems can only be mounted in top-level directories /mnt, but not /mnt/foo, etc.; I don't see the appeal.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    I prefer to use `df -T /path/to/mount`, personally.
    - vageli 7y ago
      > I prefer to use `df -T /path/to/mount`, personally. Why?
      - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        Lets me specify a single file system; I don't think `mount` does that (unless I'm blind; possible).
        vageli 7y ago
        Mount lets you do this as well. mount -t type device destination_dir Unless I am missing something in your use case.
  - mpweiher 7y ago
    > schemes make things needlessly inflexible Not so. See file: :-)