Linked by David Adams on Tue 9th Dec 2008 16:46 UTC, submitted by weildish
Permalink for comment 339740
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Well. That was the point of my comment; you made it sound like it was obvious what you were talking about as if there were some formal definition of an object oriented file system or that it was fundamentally different from what we already have. Now that you've shown me an actual implementation, it makes more sense.
Having a way to add user-space plugins to the VFS layer to override vnode syscalls per file based on type gives the file system a polymorphic feature which is indeed _one_ property of being OO but hardly one that OOP has a monopoly on. That said, this is still a neat idea, but I'm not convinced it would be as revolutionary as you suggest.
It also seems like every pre-existing programming concept gets lumped under the OOP umbrella. If it exhibits even one of those features, then the OO hand waving begins. I've even seen literature for products brag that the system is OO because they call UI elements --yes you guessed it-- OBJECTS!