Go to the FreeLists Home Page Home Signup Help Login
 



[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.







[ Home | Signup | Help | Login | Archives | Lists ]

All trademarks and copyrights within the FreeLists archives are owned by their respective owners.
Everything else ©2007 Avenir Technologies, LLC.