Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ncr-sd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ncr-sd!greg
From: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.database
Subject: Re: A variant of the streams idea
Message-ID: <376@ncr-sd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Dec-85 18:01:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ncr-sd.376
Posted: Wed Dec 25 18:01:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 23:30:10 EST
References: <2416@ukma.UUCP> <372@ncr-sd.UUCP> <964@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Organization: NCR Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:16231 net.database:161

In article <964@brl-tgr.ARPA> gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
claims that there are
>significant differences between random-access
>(disk) files and sequential (communication)
>files.  To force random files into the stream
>model would require sacrificing some of their
>desirable properties (seekability, sharability,
>speed), alas.

I'm prepared to believe that the current implementation of streams makes
this difficult or impossible, but I'm not prepared to believe that the
idea itself is difficult or impossible.  After all, what is filesystem
buffering except a protocol pushed on top of raw filesystems?  Perhaps
we should take this conversation off-line while you try to convince me,
since it doesn't seem to be something of general interest.
-- 
-- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo    Greg@ncr-sd.UUCP or Greg@nosc.ARPA