Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!lzaz!hcj
From: hcj@lzaz.ATT.COM (HC Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Directory node descriptors and AHDI
Summary: its a necessity
Message-ID: <884@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Dec 89 14:02:54 GMT
References: <8912130812.AA24281@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA
Lines: 25

In article <8912130812.AA24281@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, MALCOLM@tower-vax.city-poly.ac.UK writes:
> Which brings me to my
> question.  When I disassembled AHDI (version 1.7 I think) I noticed that it
> contained identical pool-extension code to FOLDRXXX.  So am I right in thinking
> that if AHDI extends the pool by a large enough number of directory node
> descriptors I can throw away FOLDRXXX?  I could add code to AHDI to make the
> extnension variable (duplicating the functionality of the 'XXX' in 'FOLDRXXX').

NO!

ahdi adds folders so that you can even load foldrxxx.prg (tos 1.0).
I learned this the hard way when trying to find why I had a tos1.4 problem
not on 1.0.  I recompiled my ahdi clone without the folder fix and found
I could not open any files in the desktop.  They had all been used in 
getting there.
(Yes I'm sure the number of sub directories in c: affected my case.)

However, ahdi does not add enough for many applications.  
FOLDRXXX.PRG allows you to take enough memory for your environment without
wasting too much memory.

Howard C. Johnson
ATT Bell Labs
att!lzaz!hcj
hcj@lzaz.att.com