
|
[openbeosstorage]
||
[Date Prev]
[02-2003 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[02-2003 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[openbeosstorage] Re: Facing the End ;-)
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:32:31 +0100 CET
"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I am not so sure about that... basically, we should be able to hide
> > the
> > inner partitioning workings from the user. Of course, for so
> > limited
> > systems as the Intel partitioning scheme, it's beneficial (or even
> > needed) for the user to specify a partition as primary or active
> > partition, but I wouldn't enforce a graphical interaction.
> > Better have a standard structure for every partitioning module that
> > can
> > be used by a graphical partition add-on as well as a CLI
> > implementation.
> Mmh, you're not really proposing to provide an API for each
> partitioning scheme and file system, are you=3F I would consider that a
> bit of overkill. In my opinion the GUI add-on is sufficient and
> preferred by 99.99 % of the users. If someone doesn't like it, or has
> plans like mass-partitioning over network, well, the sources are
> open.
I was only aiming at one file system/partition specific structure to be
exchanged by one API.
> BTW, for the intel partition module, I extracted the reusable code
> into
> separate source files (intel=5Fpartition=5Fmap.{h,cpp} for the structures
> and intel=5Fparameters.{h,cpp} for the conversion to and from
> parameters
> strings), that I intend to reuse in the GUI add-on. I would see
> nothing, that would prevent anyone from using them as well.
If I understand you correctly, that's what I had in mind.
> > Oh yeah :-))
> > If OpenBeOS turns out to be the one and only, we can move the
> > OpenTracker repository into ours as well, and maintaining it with
> > the
> > rest of the system.
> I somehow doubt, that this will happen. Not that I wouldn't find that
> desirable.
I guess this depends a bit on Zeta, since that one will be the only
other binary compatible OS.
Given the communicative ability combined with strange open/closed
source approaches of all those other projects, I think we are the only
"real" alternative for most BeOS users.
Well, no one can be sure for now anyway :-)
Adios...
Axel.
|

|