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....
It sounds to me this isnt a real filesystem but a filesystem addon? Do you have a link to this project?
Gunnar.
rlangschultz@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@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:13:55 -0700, Joseph Galbraith galb@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."
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
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:45:41 +0100, Mike Nordell tamlin@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
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
rlangschultz@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@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
-
Gunnar Dalsnes -
Hartmut Birr -
Jason Filby -
Joseph Galbraith -
Michael Trausch -
Mike Nordell -
Oliver Schneider -
rlangschultzï¼ cox.net