Re: App installation and encapsulation

.From: David Jeske <jeske@home.chat.net>
> I think that the above concept of using heirarchy by convention to
> have an app locate it's files would be fine as long as we could
> statically determine (i.e. by looking at the import table and NOT
> running the app) WHICH version of the 'heirarchy conventions' the app
> is using.

VAX/VMS uses version numbers..... COM uses unique IDs, the ID value
changes when the interface changes. Anyone know of COM implementation
in source code form out there?

> As an example, if a plan9 or VSTa program published (passively, in
> some form of import table) the following information, we could easily
> build the private pathname space for that app in a uniform way, so the
> developer could use the "heirarchy by convention" because we
> established the source version dependencies:
>
> HAFFF556880-0000 (my_app_data) -> /app_resources
> AB56AF7281A-BC31 (mouse v1.0) -> /dev/mouse
> 0110378AB01-C810 (fstan v1.2) -> /etc/fstab
>
> Now the app can use the heirarchial string paths if it wants, but the
> local path is built based on requirements that the app publishes.

I really like this conversation. This topic reminds me of COBOL in college.
Within the program, you gave symbolic names to your files. Basically
globals which were opened for you by the OS (VM/CMS 360) _just_before_
your program ran. You could run the program in any directory, and
data files could be located/named anything (at most 8 chars for VM/CMS).
Thus the "printer" file was selected when your program ran.

Kinda like I/O redirection at the descriptor level.

--- "Laws seldom stop politicians."
--- brian witt
Received on Tue Jan 5 05:51:35 1999