From: Han-Wen N. <ha...@gm...> - 2012-06-13 01:28:43
|
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jay Booth <jay...@gm...> wrote: > Yeah, looking into it more (sorry, I'm a newb), it appears getAttr sends an > inode back to the kernel, so that's necessary in some form. > > Your FsNode implementation had methods Inode() and SetInode(). Are those to > be implemented as super basic setter/getters, i.e., I don't have to > construct a new Inode object when Inode() is called and I don't yet have one > set? In that case, I don't have a dependency on Inode and can just provide > a service implementation of FsNode like you said. Correct. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - ha...@xs... - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen |