Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:34:57 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: james@wgold.demon.co.uk (James Mansion) Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: java support under FreeBSD. Message-ID: <199703071734.KAA16947@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <331FE9FB.442A@wgold.demon.co.uk> from "James Mansion" at Mar 7, 97 10:12:11 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I accept Terry's argument that the implementation is hard. I have to, > because I don't have any familiarity with the way thtat the file system > code works. Perhaps I naively thought that the kernel already > supported overlay file systems like cachefs and ones that allow mounting > a write layer over a CDROM and other such stuff that might be available > elsewhere (ahem!). This currently does not work, to a large extent. I identified the majorly offending VOP's in my last reply. Without fixing them, it's not likely that you will be able to do anything about this. > I didn't like Terry's assumption that there would be a search order > issue though. This assumed that you would overlay mount onto the same FS. Since this is not the case in your example, then there isn't a problem, other than that caused by exposing the same objects in two places in the namespace without a method of serializing access -- unless the overlay FS is to be read-only? If you did that, I believe you could get what you are looking for with only minor modifications to amd, actually. > So I think Terry's concern over having to force a complete search for > 'foo' before trying to fake things with 'foo.class' is misplaced. Yes; your sample implementation does not overaly onto the same namespace entry point for the namespace intrusion for the "converted" class names. > I'm pretty horified by large-scale hacks to shells or moving globbing or > frigging exec routines, which have a very well defined behaviour. Me too, which is why I'm willing to go into such great gory detail on the subject. Typically, I don't use JAVA -- I think that strong typing is for weak minds (and lazy compiler/interpreter writers). The same argument applies equally well to ANSI prototypes, but I have less choice when it comes to using them. 8-(. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703071734.KAA16947>