[openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:53:09 +0100 CET
"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> Then there was a misunderstanding. The partition code is not
> available
> through the C++ API (unless the string is parsed), but I thought it
> should still be kept in the extend=5Fpartition=5Finfo structure. Axel's
> argument for that is, that a FS add-on should be able to check the
> partition type for validity, but, rethinking the matter now, I don't
> see why it shouldn't just check the string. I mean, it's not even
> more
> overhead, since it wouldn't need to parse the type string to get a
> code, but could just compare the string directly.
>
> I tend to schedule the field for removal. Any other arguments against
> that=3F
What about: do as you like=3F ;-))
Adios...
Axel.
- References:
- [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- From: Ingo Weinhold
Other related posts:
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- » [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- [openbeosstorage] Re: API Extensions
- From: Ingo Weinhold