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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,942b3184b8c0c422
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Platform portable support of heir. file systems
Date: 1996/12/22
Message-ID: <dewar.851276907@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 205487104
references: <01bbec7f$453edcd0$24af1486@pc-phw> <1996Dec18.071612.1@eisner>
 <32B8508F.2B7D@online.no> <dewar.851114671@merv> <32BC1A02.3DAA@online.no>
 <1996Dec21.153129.1@eisner>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Larry said

"Even though we might all _wish_ there was an easy answer,
wishing does not make it so.  Posix provides an approach
for those running under Unix-emulating subsystems, including
MVS Open Edition, but it does not provide transparent access
to the bulk of existing data on non-Unix systems. I do not
mean to slight the Posix committee(s), some tasks are just
too hard."


Actually, I think the Posix approach is just fine. Note that you do not
have to "emulate Unix" to be Posix compliant, just provide a set of
interfaces (which by the way is certainly not full Unix in any case).

Manufacturers then make the choice of whether to try to be compliant
with this standard or not. 

So using this apporach you meet half way at an abstract set of 
interfaces representing a desired set of functionalities. If it is
possble to map an OS to this interface, then you do so, rather than
trying to make the top level abstraction handle direcly the quirks
of every possible operating system.