
|
[openbeosstorage]
||
[Date Prev]
[02-2003 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[02-2003 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[openbeosstorage] Re: ISO9660/cdrom progress
- From: "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:40:38 CET (+0100)
> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > > But that's not enough - we don't support them correctly, we
> > > always
> > > have
> > > to export all sessions, but there should be a way to
> > > differentiate
> > > multi-session sessions from others, so that Tracker only shows
> > > the
> > > last
> > > sessions, without having to care about it.
> > > But you should always be able to mount every single session from
> > > the
> > > shell as it was (perhaps even from within Tracker, perhaps with a
> > > submenu for a session=3D3F - although that would require extra
> > > coding,
> > > it
> > > might be a nice solution for power-users).
> > But isn't that a feature that should be into the Tracker rather
> > than
> > into some API=3F I mean, the device API provides all information
> > available. If the user wishes -- or let it be the default behavior
> > --
> >
> > that only the last sessions of a multi-session CD should be
> > available,
> > than this is something the Tracker can provide easily. Or do I miss
> > something=3F
>
> Perhaps :) Tracker need to have an understanding about which sessions
> make up a multi-session volume, or else it can't offer that feature
> to
> the user.
> Now, only the session add-on itself know which session is part of a
> multi-session volume, and which is not. It has to make that
> information
> available in some way.
Er, I probably just don't know about multi-session CDs. A CD doesn't
simply consist of sessions, but these sessions are grouped in volumes??
If that is so, it should be an information the Disk Device API is able
to provide.
> > > Yes and no - I think the fs initialization belongs to the "real"
> > > file
> > > system add-on, not the disk=3D5Fscanner fs module.
> > I agree. What I originally had in mind was, that the disk=5Fscanner
> > module simply gets hold of the FS add-on and tells it to do the
> > initialization.
> > But actually we should be able to get completely rid of the
> > disk=5Fscanner FS modules and extend the FS add-on a bit to provide
> > the
> > required functionionality. Now that I think about it, I find it the
> > preferrable solution. No code duplication at all...
>
> Indeed, although we might want to introduce simple fs scanners at a
> later point, when/if we find the process to be too slow or memory
> hungry.
Agreed.
> > > So the (void *) parameter will always be a string in the future,
> > > initialize=3D5Fvolume() can reflect that, while mount should
> > > probably
> > > stay
> > > compatible with the current version=3D3F (we would only lose
> > > source
> > > code
> > > compatibility)
> > I dislike using a string a bit, since that requires code to parse
> > that
> > string, when one could as well pass a nice structure. But I see
> > that
> > structures don't work very well with driver=5Fsettings.
>
> And that structures are often fixed structures and cannot be easily
> extended.
Right.
CU, Ingo
|

|