> This brings me back to my first observation --- it's not at all clear
> how useful file metadata really is. Could one of the advocates of file
> metadata give me an actual proposed application which could profitably
> use it?
One of the main points that need clarification is resource forks are not
metadata. On the Mac each file has two forks, that is the point why you
need to binhex it as it would loose data transferred to a conventional
file system. The use of multiforked file system is debatable, this can
probably be represented with other means less painless, although you will
face consistency issues (how to atomically rename a multiforked file
simulated with multiple conventional files?).
Meta data (on the Mac) is stored in the directory entry of every file, and
is mostly used by the user interface. For example the file types save you
from having to have special suffixes on your file names. I really hate it
if a system insists to put a .doc at the end of the file name just to be
able to double click the document to able to open it. Another very useful
feature is used by my FTP client, it puts the URL of a downloaded file
into the comment meta data field.
Again it is possible to store such information seperately. But it is much
easier if I rm a file and the comment field just disappears automagically.
-- Jens-Uwe Mager <pgp-mailto:62CFDB25>- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html