Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!gary
From: gary@mit-eddie.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Workbench improvements.. anybody disagree with this evaluation?
Message-ID: <5668@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 30-Apr-87 14:28:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: eddie.5668
Posted: Thu Apr 30 14:28:03 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 1-May-87 04:45:34 EDT
References: <8704292134.AA22507@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: gary@eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22

In article <8704292134.AA22507@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
>	Making an icon oriented interface supported at the filesystem level
>is simply not feasible... it doesn't solve anything, and makes for big 
>compatibility problems (like files are no longer simply files). 

As you say, Matt, NO NO NO NO NO!

Today, files are not simply files.  Files are TWO files!

Solving this problem at the filesystem level (or at least at DOS level)
is the most appropriate way.  You forget about us, the developers writing
software that must deal with these icon files as well as the actual file
each time we delete, create, move, or copy one.  In fact, I have a s**tload
of extra code to deal with a user's preference for Workbench style or CLI
style file handling (if he chooses Workbench style, icon files are created
when necessary; }iif he chooses CLI style, they are not).

It makes MUCH more sense for the user to choose a Preference at the system
level to handle this difference and let the filesystem do the rest of the
work.

	Gary