Rethinking the filesystem as global mutable state, the root of all evil

Re:Rethinking the filesystem as global mutable state, the ro... by taffer on Tuesday June 11, 2019 @09:24PM (#20160976)

That's interesting. Some time ago I had a similar idea, but with the following differences:

3. Ownership cannot be transferred. A file remains in the same application throughout its lifecycle.

4. An application can give another application read-only access to a namespace containing one or more files.

6. An application can give another application read/write access to a namespace containing one or more files through a transaction mechanism.

Do you see any advantages or disadvantages of both approaches from your point of view?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rethinking the filesystem as global mutable state, the ro... by satyenr on Wednesday June 12, 2019 @12:08AM (#20161691)

The idea behind ownership transfer is to ensure that an application never sees another application’s namespace. Ownership transfer doesn’t really involve copying files as it does on iPadOS — it is still held at the same location on disk. The original application can just no longer see it as it no longer remains in its namespace. At the end of the operation, the second application may choose to retain or relinquish the file as needed.

[ Parent | on HN ]