Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!kim
From: kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Command line length limitations (was: Re: Pipes)
Message-ID: <83LT02E0aeYi01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Date: 10 Jun 90 19:25:57 GMT
References: <2533@zipeecs.umich.edu> <136735@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <12517@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Lines: 40

In article <12517@cbmvax.commodore.com>, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:
>
> >> factor in design.  Path lengths are still constrained by the 255 character
> >
> >255 *seems* reasonable for this, but it would be nice to get the fix "In there"
> >for 2.1 ...
> 
> 	Warning, it's a big one, so don't hold your breath yet.
> 
> >I assume filenames proper are still limited to 30 chars?
> 
> 	The filesystem determines that, and the current filesystems (ram and
> the rom FS) use 30, but a FS could allow more.

OK, I won't.  The reason I mentioned the FS name-length limitation was more to
verify it than anything else, as the 255/30 ratio still guarantees a minimum
tree depth of 7 (if you include the vol name), as seen at the CLI/Exec() inter-
face.  Typically, of course, it can be much deeper (with a maximum of around
146).  Sound quite reasonable (not that I plan on counting on such "limits" 
for anything).

So, if a real fix for the path-length is extensive/ugly/etc, I see no reason
not to put it on the back-burner.

Thanks again for taking care of the major headache!

BTW, will all these new hooks for the improved shell interface (System(),
matchfirst/next, wildcard flags, etc) be documented in the DevCon notes, or
are some things still not "firm"?  I get the impression that the latter's
the case.


/kim

-- 
UUCP:  kim@amdahl.amdahl.com
  or:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim
DDD:   408-746-8462
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
BIX:   kdevaughn     GEnie:   K.DEVAUGHN     CIS:   76535,25