> Now, what if you write a file as foo.sz, and then write it as foo.dw. Do
> we change the key type?
Absolutely.
> Do we fail with ENOENT? What is the semantics there?
Well, the semantics of the registry API is that you specify the type
explicitly every time you set a value, and that doing so overrides the old
type in just the same way as setting the value overrides the old value.
> Also, this suffix idea reminds me more of versions on VMS or streams on
> NT, rather than real extensions. I wonder if we could/should use "foo:dw"
> or "foo:sz", rather than using the extension...
I don't think it would matter very much precisely how we do it; after all
it's a virtual FS and we can implement whatever standards we like.
> IOW, "foo.sz" might be a
> valid filename, but "foo:sz" already cannot be on certain filesystems...
Yes, but then again it's perfectly valid on others, including managed
mounts, and given that it's *not* a filename that could /never/ occur, it
doesn't really gain you any real separation of the namespaces.
> The question about using two different filetypes in a row still applies,
> though.
Like I said, setting a value always sets the content and type at the same
time; same would apply in this case.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
