On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 15:42, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 10:32 PM +0300 4/28/04, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >> I think you'll find ACL use is increasing, not decreasing. They've > >> been tacked on to most recent filesystems, and they're coming into But AFAIK, Windows is the only place where the use of ACLs is encouraged in the native API. Everywhere else I look, they seem to be an add-on that you can use if you want to tie yourself to a particular set of extensions. This is why, for example, AIX has had ACLs forever, but I can't name one product that uses them (other than backup and restore software ;-) > >This is true. But good luck in trying to map between the ACL schema of > >different systems :-( > > Yech, good point. I'm not even sure you can do any sort of sane > abstraction there. Sure you can. It's just at a much higher level of abstraction than stat. You could very easily say "this is a file permission object" and ask it "can I do X to this file?" or "can <user> do X to this file" where <user> might be a process or uid_t or whatever. That's perfectly reasonable as a core system abstraction layer, I was just waving the "keep the native access too" flag, since I've seen too many systems abstract away the native system to the point that no reasonable integration can occur between the language and its surroundings (e.g. Java). -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith "It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
