Re: Problem with '/' in archieve name

Thomas A Fine (fine@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Mon, 31 Jan 1994 20:59:29 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Jeffrey C. Ollie: "Re: Problem with '/' in archieve name"
Maybe in reply to: Craig A. Finseth: "Problem with '/' in archieve name"

>> > I, for one, dislike the naming convention of using nonunique filenames...
>> > I'd like to lobby for a name convention change, so that the names at the
>> > file level are unique across the entire news.answers directory at
>> > rtfm.mit.edu. The "part#" could be used as a suffix.
[...]
>And just to point out a divergence between the current convention and your
>assertion about fewer characters: many of the FAQs have the phrase
>"-faq" as part of their names. Given that they are in the news.answers
>hierarchy, what can they be but FAQs?

Lots of other Periodic Postings. Lots and lots and lots. As much as
30% are not FAQs, I'd guess. Listings of information. Single purpose
documents. Lots of things.

>> or (b) turn the entire *.answers hierarchy into one big directory
>> which would be far more difficult for humans to browse and slower for
>> machines to maintain.
>
>No argument here (imagine that - a point of agreement!); a single
>directory would probably be a bad idea.

The only time this extra uniqueness would be useful is if you are
copying out of the tree structure and into a flat structure. Since
you've just indicated that the tree structure is important and/or
necessary for the entire set, then what subset makes a flat structure
attractive? I would assume that any automated copying is going to be in
bulk, in which case a flat structure would not be what you'd want anyway.

One thing though, the fourteen character limit in archive-name path
elements has already been violated by a few people, so that isn't
really a good argument against the long filenames this would create.
Still, long filenames suck for other reasons. The directory structure
is deeper than two deep, so do you store the entire path in the file
name, or just the containing directory:
tv/program-guides/married-with-children/married-with-children.appendix2
or
tv/program-guides/married-with-children/appendix2/tv.program-guides.married-with-children.appendix2

The first may solve the uniqueness problem in this particular case, but
not all cases. Many people use a topic/document, where one document is
an FAQ, yielding topic/faq/partn. So this would mean the first method
would NOT yield a unique basename. Which means you'd be stuck with
the second method. No way.

Anyway, we've ruled out the usefulness of automated programs dealing
with a flat structure, so what about the users? As far as the users,
if ftp needs a new feature, then fix ftp, not every file system on the
Internet. Didn't you say someting yourself about fixing the problem at
the source? Does anyone have an ftp with a lmkdir command, or with a
variable that tells ftp to automatically create subdirectories?

tom

Best rule of programming and problem solving I know:
"When in doubt, use a tree stucture"
--me

Previous message: Jeffrey C. Ollie: "Re: Problem with '/' in archieve name"
Maybe in reply to: Craig A. Finseth: "Problem with '/' in archieve name"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]