[openbeosstorage] Re: BDiskSystem::Supports*()/Validate*()
- From: Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:13:06 -0700
On 2003-07-16 at 16:49:38 [-0700], you wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> now that I implemented them all, I really start to wonder, whether
> most
> of the BDiskSystem::Supports*()/Validate*() are really needed at all.
> Some of them, like SupportsDefragmenting(), are completely equivalent
> to a BPartition method (CanDefragment() in this case). Or say, they
> are
> even less handy, because one has a redundant parameter that the method
> needs to check (the disk system the method is invoked on must be the
> one the partition is formatted with (or its parent partition for some
> methods)).
>
> Others, like BDiskSystem::SupportsResizing() give different
> information
> than BPartition::CanResize(). In fact the latter one is the result of
> an AND of BDiskSystem::SupportsResizing() and SupportsResizingChild().
> The question is: Are the individual pieces of information returned by
> the latter ones of interest or not?
I believe I had envisioned functions like BPartition::CanResize() being
implemented by specifically calling BDiskSystem::SupportsResizing() for
the appropriate disk system and then anding it with a call to
SupportsResizingChild(). Doing it like you have by calling the kernel
functions directly is fine, too, though. And as you mention, I guess
it's more efficient, too. :-)
> So, what I think about is to
> 1) drop the BDiskSystem::Validate*() methods entirely,
Fine by me.
> 2) drop the BPartition* parameter of the Supports*() methods -- they
> would return only, if the disk system in principle has the
> capabilities, but not whether it can be done for a certain partition.
Sounds okay also.
> So, the only remaining methods with a BPartition* parameters would be
> GetNextSupportedType(), which enumerates possible partition types for
> children of a partition, and IsSubSystemFor(), which tells whether the
> disk system is a subsystem of the system on the supplied partition
> (e.g. the `intel extended partition' system would be a subsystem for a
> `intel partition map' partition).
>
> What do you think?
Looks good to me, I say go for it. :-)
-Tyler
Other related posts:
