From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.86.200 with SMTP id t8mr635193qal.0.1373943345223;
        Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.94.174 with SMTP id dd14mr1714096qeb.14.1373943345202;
 Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.bbs-scene.org!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!t19no1763996qam.0!news-out.google.com!dk8ni102qab.0!nntp.google.com!t19no1763992qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ks2485$ks0$1@loke.gir.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2.230.82.82;
 posting-account=GfZx5woAAADTB-o-XOdlp4UQ5ID5xKzF
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2.230.82.82
References: <46f7ac55-b920-4003-8cac-a9cbc24b29a2@googlegroups.com>
 <krts2n$ojj$1@online.de>
 <3b1b00b6-9799-4827-b51c-8e08d4dc6e91@googlegroups.com>
 <ks2485$ks0$1@loke.gir.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <600aa74c-78af-4d43-9301-ab9c0022f825@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: ZFS/BtrFS bindings
From: Dufr <dufriz@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:55:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16370
Date: 2013-07-15T19:55:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Any I'm extremely dubious that a third-party "binding" would work. You could 
> get some file attributes that way, but you wouldn't be able to use any of 
> that information for I/O (that is, you couldn't open a file identified by 
> the binding) because there is no Ada way to do such low-level access to I/O 
> facilities.

Do you mean that it is not even worth trying one's own bindings?

I am asking because I am fully aware is not a high-priority feature among users, so it is not likely to see it implemented by any vendors. It is only my guess, of course. 
The thing is that I won't hold my breath for some vendor to come along and implement Ada support for ZFS, because it may never happen...

So, my next question is: how much would a hired programmer need to write one-platform-only (say, Windows or Linux) Ada bindings for *some* ZFS functions?
I am saying "some" because what I actually need is only the support for extended attributes (xattr). Any guess?