[openbeosstorage] Re: Amiga RDB
- From: "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 18:05:40 +0200 CEST
"Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I know mphipps was an Amiga fan, but
> > > Amiga was really nothing more than a legend to me until I started
> > > working on this project. I've never even so much as seen an Amiga
> > > box...
> > Ooohh! 8-O
>
> I still have a working Amiga here, and MorphOS, which come with the
> Pegasos, is AmigaOS compatible.
> I even still develop an application for it which should be finished
> soon! :-)
That's a bit scary, I have to admit. ;-)
> > ...
> > Maybe it's a good idea to remove them from the BPartition anyway.
> > Mind
> > you, resizing/moving a partition will also always affect sibling
> > partitionable spaces (up to four in case of moving), which might be
> > a
> > bit hairy to handle. Since the information the BPartitionableSpaces
> > provide are of interest only, if one is going to modify the
> > partition
> > layout (and would only waste resources otherwise), it might make
> > more
> > sense to retrieve them on request only. E.g. via a method
> > BPartition::GetPartitionableSpaces(BObjectList<BPartitionableSpace>
> > *
> > spaces). Or maybe even more consequent:
> > BPartition::GetPartitioningInfo(BPartitioningInfo *info), where
> > BPartioningInfo could not only know, which are the free spaces, but
> > also which space is assigned to which subpartition. This would also
> > solve the problem with the RDB's reserved space at the beginning/
> > end
> > of
> > partitions, since the BPartitioningInfo would consider the complete
> > space occupied by a subpartition.
>
> Sounds good, I think.
>
> I have also another remark about the Amiga RDB; since the block can
> be
> in the first 16 blocks of a device, it could easily be added
> alongside
> an existing partitioning information.
> I.e. you could have an Intel style partitioning block at the
> beginning,
> and the Amiga RDB on the same disk, describing the same layout. At
> least, I am pretty sure that no one used it that way yet, it would
> easily be possible to be able to switch your hard drives from one
> system to the other while still being able to access (nearly) all
> partitions. So we might just ignore it :-)
Sorry, I didn't get that. You mean, for disks with Amiga RDB, the user
could additionally describe the partition layout using the Intel scheme
and hence we can ignore the RDB? Mmh, while I'm usually a big fan of
ignoring problems, I'd find this approach a bit... err... you know what
I mean. :-)
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
