Re: [Relfs-devel] About relfs-devel

[Fabio T. <ko...@ko...>]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 03:24:25PM +0200, Vincenzo aka Nick Name wrote:
> To summarize what I think about winfs: "I am not used to believe=20
> microsoft rumours until I see the product" and "I won't buy a 1gb=20
> memory addon for my laptop just to open a desktop folder" :) I have=20
> been using ms sql server at work, and sure it is not lightweight.=20
> Moreover, I don't expect too much features to be included in the first=20
> release of winfs, or extensibility through plugins.

I didn't try any database-based filesystem, but AFAIK Apple is
developing a similar solution. I'm sure we need next generation
filesystems, with automatic handles of file types, automatic indexing
and a powerful search engine.

You answered me that mssql server is not lightweight. Yes, I agree,
but PostgreSQL too. In general, a database-based filesystem will be
slower (and slower) than a traditional tree-based filesystem.=20

IMHO this type of filesystem can't replace traditional filesystems.=20
I'd prefer to use a traditional fs for my debian system, and I think this
is the best choice. A relational filesystem can be useful only for
document and personal users folders. Do you agree?

> Regarding to storage, I have written to seth but received no reply.=20
> Either he is busy, or he is not trusting an open development process.=20
> Or he just missed my message, I will try to contact him again and on=20
> some mailing list, too.=20

I think we have to avoid code duplication. I've not yet tried storage..
Did you do this? Is that usable? The best thing would be extend storage
adding some features actually are missing... Maybe relfs could be
integrated in storage, as you suggested.

> RelFS and Storage are partially overlapping projects: both have a=20
> compatiblity layer for other applications (those of storage is=20
> gnomevfs, but I don't think there could be any objection to a kernel=20
> interface), and both extract information from files in real time,=20
> storing it into an SQL database, so the best thing to do would be to=20
> use relfs as the lower-level layer of storage, which could then focus=20
> on its higher level goals, such as the natural language query=20
> interface. We'll see, but consider there are differences between the=20
> two approaches (e.g. I would tend to keep real data on the hard drive,=20
> to ensure data visibility in case of the hard drive being mounted from=20
> a PC without postgresql - Maybe psql can do this by itself, I don't=20
> know yet). Moreover, storage has a very simple data model; I am going=20
> to use a richer data model.

And in the case you used to mount a relfs filesystem "without postgresql"
and removed, added or modified some documents, how the metadatas could=20
be updated? How do you imagine this case?

> I encourage people to download the CVS version and try it, then decide=20
> what you would like to do next, and start a thread on this mailing list=
=20
> to discuss the details.

I'll do this ASAP.

Talk to you later,
Fabio.

--=20

Fabio Tranchitella

<!> kobold.it, Turin, Italy  - Free is better!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 <http://www.kobold.it>, <ko...@ko...>, <ko...@ja...>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key fingerprint: 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D  9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564