A new sub-project

Is it alright if i incorporate a database filesystem and a port of project looking glass
into ReactOS. I really would like to see looking glass as an interface to ReactOS, as well
as a database file system. I have been working on this filesystem for about a year now,
and it is working on my windows 2000 and xp boxes. But it requires a service to start
called windbfs.exe, and i know that reactos doesn't include support for services as
well as it would like. The database file system is based off of mysql, tcl, and maxdb.
Please respond with comments and opinions....

[Gunnar Dalsnes]

It sounds to me this isnt a real filesystem but a filesystem addon? Do 
you have a link to this project?

Gunnar.

rlangschultz(a)cox.net wrote:
>   Is it alright if i incorporate a database filesystem
> and a port of project looking glass into ReactOS. I really would like to see looking glass
> as an interface to ReactOS, as well as a database file system. I have been working on this
> filesystem for about a year now, and it is working on my windows 2000 and xp boxes. But it
> requires a service to start called windbfs.exe, and i know that reactos doesn't
> include support for services as well as it would like. The database file system is based
> off of mysql, tcl, and maxdb.
>  Please respond with comments and opinions....
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  
>  
>

[Oliver Schneider]

I agree.

Although it may be a filesystem by definition - a filesystem for NT/ROS
should operate solely in kernel mode ... and work there completely (i.e. all
other kernel components must be able to use it). Which implies usually that
you could potentially boot from it or mount it before usermode processes are
alive.

Anyway I would also be interested in it and especially a pointer to more
details about it.

Oliver

>   It sounds to me this isnt a real filesystem but a
> filesystem addon? Do 
>  you have a link to this project?
>  
>  Gunnar. 
-- 
---------------------------------------------------
May the source be with you, stranger ;)

ICQ: #281645
URL: http://assarbad.net

[Joseph Galbraith]

Oliver Schneider wrote:
>   I agree.
>  
>  Although it may be a filesystem by definition - a filesystem for NT/ROS
>  should operate solely in kernel mode ... and work there completely 
I think this might be a little restrictive.

A NT filesystem doesn't have to operate solely in kernel
mode.  The kernel mode component is free to delegate work
to a usermode component if it chooses.  (In fact, if
I'm not mistaken, Microsoft's webdav filesystem driver
works this way.)

>   Which implies usually that
>  you could potentially boot from it or mount it before usermode processes are
>  alive. 
I believe boot filesystems have special requirements above and
beyond other filesystems.  (Like freeloader has to understand
enough of it's on disk layout to load a driver off of it.)

It is true that a filesystem that has a usermode component
can not be used as a boot driver.

Thanks,

Joseph

[Oliver Schneider]

>   I think this might be a little restrictive.
>  
>  A NT filesystem doesn't have to operate solely in kernel
>  mode.  The kernel mode component is free to delegate work
>  to a usermode component if it chooses.  (In fact, if
>  I'm not mistaken, Microsoft's webdav filesystem driver
>  works this way.) 
The WebDAV component of MS I know is completely in usermode. It is
just a
shell namespace extension.

If you meant DFS - this uses reparse points which "delegate" their work to
the DFS service (i.e. usermode). That's true, but this is not a full-blown
FS because of this - it's just another FS filter.

>   I believe boot filesystems have special requirements
> above and
>  beyond other filesystems.  (Like freeloader has to understand
>  enough of it's on disk layout to load a driver off of it.) 
Yap. That's
surely true. Which would not be a problem in ROS (because we
have the source *g*), but on NT. And I said "potentially" exactly because of
this. But you cannot mount a filesystem relying on MySQL (a usermode
process) early during boot process.
Maybe this question should be asked in the NTFSD list - because it is about
the definition of FS in NT. I just doubt that the description we currently
have of this project qualifies it as "file system" in the classical sense.
Nevertheless it may be a coll thing ;)

Oliver

-- 
---------------------------------------------------
May the source be with you, stranger ;)

ICQ: #281645
URL: http://assarbad.net

[Joseph Galbraith]

Oliver Schneider wrote:
> >  I think this
> > might be a little restrictive.
> >
> > A NT filesystem doesn't have to operate solely in kernel
> > mode.  The kernel mode component is free to delegate work
> > to a usermode component if it chooses.  (In fact, if
> > I'm not mistaken, Microsoft's webdav filesystem driver
> > works this way.) 
>  
>  The WebDAV component of MS I know is completely in usermode. It is just a
>  shell namespace extension. 
I give you pudding :-) (The proof is in the pudding right?)

Run WinOBJ and take a look at Device directory.  Notice
the \Device\WebDavRedirector device.

WebDav is a filesystem driver (of the kind refered to a
network redirector, but non-the-less a filesystem driver.)

Thanks,

Joseph

[Oliver Schneider]

>   I give you pudding :-) (The proof is in the pudding
> right?) 
Yummy :) ...

>   Run WinOBJ and take a look at Device directory. 
> Notice
>  the \Device\WebDavRedirector device. 
Cannot find it on my W2K Pro.
How about the \FileSystem object directory? Does it show there?

>   WebDav is a filesystem driver (of the kind refered to
> a
>  network redirector, but non-the-less a filesystem driver.) 
Are we talking about
WebDAV served by IIS or WebDAV using "Web Folders"
component as a client (which I thought we talk about)? And about which OS
are we talking here?
The problem: I do not use IIS because of security concerns. Therefore I
cannot check it on any of my machines.

I want to believe, alone I lack the faith ("Faust")

Oliver

-- 
---------------------------------------------------
May the source be with you, stranger ;)

ICQ: #281645
URL: http://assarbad.net

[Joseph Galbraith]

Oliver Schneider wrote:
> >  I give you
> > pudding :-) (The proof is in the pudding right?) 
>  
>  Yummy :) ...
>  
> >  Run WinOBJ and take a look at Device directory. 
> > Notice
> > the \Device\WebDavRedirector device. 
>  
>  Cannot find it on my W2K Pro. 
WinOBJ or \Device\WebDavRedirector... I don't think the webdav
redirector was introduced until WinXP.  And WinOBJ is a sysinternals
tool.

>   How about the \FileSystem object directory? Does it
> show there? 
Yep.

\FileSystem\MRxDAV

> >  WebDav is a
> > filesystem driver (of the kind refered to a
> > network redirector, but non-the-less a filesystem driver.) 
>  
>  Are we talking about WebDAV served by IIS or WebDAV using "Web Folders"
>  component as a client (which I thought we talk about)? And about which OS
>  are we talking here? 
WebDAV using "Web Folders" as a client (I think... definetely not
IIS, I don't have it.)

Windows XP is what I'm looking at... I don't think web folders
were supported for 2000.

In WinXP, you can map a WebDAV url to a drive letter and access
it from a DOS window, or any other win32 program.

That's not a shell extension (unfortunately; it would have been
really cool if shell extensions worked at that level.)

Thanks,

Joseph

PS. Unfortunately, none of this proves that WebDAV uses a user mode
component :-) That is just what I've heard.  But WebDAV is definitely
a filesystem.

Personally, I think it was wise of MS to not put a full
blown webdav client in the kernel.

[Oliver Schneider]

>   WinOBJ or \Device\WebDavRedirector... I don't
> think the webdav
>  redirector was introduced until WinXP. 
My working system is W2K :-[

>   And WinOBJ is a sysinternals tool. 
I know.
There's another version from a Russian developer called WinObjEx and
I am currently working on a reduced Delphi version for an article about the
native API.

>   \FileSystem\MRxDAV 
So no doubt. You are right.

>   WebDAV using "Web Folders" as a client (I
> think... definetely not
>  IIS, I don't have it.) 
IIS is included (it replaced the PWS - Personal Web
Server - from Windows
9x/Me, just with limitations, e.g. 10 connections max.) in W2K/WXP (but not
installed by default), that's why I ask.

>   Windows XP is what I'm looking at... I don't
> think web folders
>  were supported for 2000. 
They are :) - but as I said as a shell namespace extension
not allowing for
mounting them to directories of DOS drive letters. And you had to install it
explicitly.

>   In WinXP, you can map a WebDAV url to a drive letter
> and access
>  it from a DOS window, or any other win32 program.
>  
>  That's not a shell extension (unfortunately; it would have been
>  really cool if shell extensions worked at that level.) 
Hehe :) ... would you really
like this ... the word "malware" pops into my
mind ...

>   PS. Unfortunately, none of this proves that WebDAV
> uses a user mode
>  component :-) That is just what I've heard.  But WebDAV is definitely
>  a filesystem. 
WebDAV is a meta-filesystem for sure, but the access to it is not
necessarily achieved via filesystem driver. Access of Midnight Commander to
an FTP URL does also not require a filesystem driver (just as an example).

>   Personally, I think it was wise of MS to not put a
> full
>  blown webdav client in the kernel. 
Definitely. That would be a perfect remote door
into kernelmode of any XP
machine. There's surely a usermode component.

Thanks for the information.

Oliver

-- 
---------------------------------------------------
May the source be with you, stranger ;)

ICQ: #281645
URL: http://assarbad.net

[Michael Trausch]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:13:55 -0700, Joseph Galbraith <galb(a)vandyke.com> wrote:
>   
>  Windows XP is what I'm looking at... I don't think web folders
>  were supported for 2000.
>   
Small tidbit of (possibly) helpful information.  I use Win2k at work,
and Web Folders are within My Network Places.  It supports "... a
shared folder, a Web folder on the Internet, or an FTP site."

-- 
M. B. Trausch      http://fd0man.theunixplace.com/
678-522-7934        http://fd0man.livejournal.com/
fd0man(a)gmail.com      AIM/Yahoo:  MBTrausch/fd0man

[Mike Nordell]

rlangschultz wrote:

>   Is it alright if i incorporate a database filesystem
> and a port
>  of project looking glass into ReactOS. 
I originally prepared a long and elaborate response to this, until I
realized what you call a filesystem simply can't be a filesystem at all.
Could it perhaps be a filesystem database?

So instead of picking it apart piece-by-piece before I have the whole
picture, perhaps you could elaborate a bit? Exactly what is it? What's its
intended usage? How much memory would it need? How much space (and how many
entries) would it need in the ReactOS source code repository (I suspect this
thinkg + MySQL + MaxDB + TCL isn't exactly lightweight)?

Also, for the ones of us that think of Looking Glass as the (no longer)
company behind titles such as Ultima Underworld, System Shock and Thief,
could you perhaps explain a bit more about it? What is it, what is it used
for, and how would it benefit the majority of ReactOS users?


/Mike

[Jason Filby]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:45:41 +0100, Mike Nordell <tamlin(a)algonet.se> wrote:
>   How much space (and how many entries) would it need in
> the ReactOS source code
>  repository (I suspect this thinkg + MySQL + MaxDB + TCL isn't exactly lightweight)?
I would prefer it to have its own logical repository; something like
this is not core and not everyone wants it.

Cheers
Jason

[Mike Nordell]

Jason Filby wrote:

>   On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:45:41 +0100, Mike Nordell
[email address removed, manually]
>   wrote:
> >   How much space (and how many entries) would it
> > need in the ReactOS
> >  source code repository (I suspect this thinkg + MySQL + MaxDB + TCL
> >  isn't exactly lightweight)? 
>  I would prefer it to have its own logical repository; something like
>  this is not core and not everyone wants it. 
That was one of my points, even if seemingly too subtle. :-)

>  From the dependencies listed it seemed this could be a
> substantial amount of 
code (or, as I'd usually put it, one pretty large, bloated
beast).

If it is of more general Win32 use, as the author have it already running on
both NT5.0 and 5.1, perhaps SourceForge would be a more suitable place for
such a project?


/Mike

[Hartmut Birr]

rlangschultz(a)cox.net schrieb:

>  Is it alright if i incorporate a database filesystem
> and a port of project looking glass into ReactOS. I really would like to see looking glass
> as an interface to ReactOS, as well as a database file system. I have been working on this
> filesystem for about a year now, and it is working on my windows 2000 and xp boxes. But it
> requires a service to start called windbfs.exe, and i know that reactos doesn't
> include support for services as well as it would like. The database file system is based
> off of mysql, tcl, and maxdb.
> Please respond with comments and opinions....
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>   
>  
After I'm reading always interesting mails of Ric in the past, I am very
interested on a description or a few lines of real code from him.
Apology, after I've possibly annoyed some other ROS developers (Alex
please forgive me), I cannot omit it to write this Mail. ;-)

- Hartmut