« Why GlusterFS is Glusterfsck'd Too | Main | Cassandra May (repeat, MAY) be Usable for Production After All »

September 07, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I disagree with your view about UNIX unification of interfaces as fd.

I think of that as a object-oriented approach to the problem. All of those concepts use fd's to share the common most basic operations (open, read, write, close) with a well defined and common interface.

Then you can introspect the real type of the generic file with stat(), for each type a set of extra operations is available, just like you would with a subclass.

Best regards,

Chip  Salzenberg

I did say that fds fall under the Utility Corollary. If you could know that every fd was a plain file, would your fd-manipulating code be simpler? Of course. So that's the Pretense Rule at work. But for the sake of utility Unix (and even more Plan 9) extended fds to cover lots of non-file things. The loss of simplicity is acceptable.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)