3 ms·
I take it you missed the part where I said " None of t hat seems like something that would require anything more than an extension that handled additional metad
by kbenson 7y ago
I take it you missed the part where I said " None of t hat seems like something that would require anything more than an extension that handled additional metadata"? I'm not saying don't add additional data that can be fast indexed and trackable, I'm just not sure why it requires a rewrite from the ground up and isn't additional data that is tracked tacked onto the file metadata. I mean, what is that not going to be able to support that just the new metadata would? The difference is whether you also have a hierarchical location stored or not.
The only thing that comes to mind is ACL tracking and it getting a bit complex from different access types, but I can think of a few options to work with that already.
- stickfigure 7y agoSo you want to take existing filesystem technology, and build additional indexing and query capabilities so that it can handle nonhierarchical data? Sounds like a great idea. Let's call it "Longhorn".
- kbenson 7y agoI think you mean WinFS. Longhorn is a whole release codename, which encompassed many new features. Given that a beta WinFS eventually was made available as a separate download years after even it's beta was slated to be released[1], I suspect they did what I outlined above - eventually. Otherwise, I'm not sure why a bolt on component to the system would require so long and miss deadlines like it did. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS#Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS#Development