lukas started also to see how to have a new filesystem. So there is 
definitively a NEED.
Please keep going, ask for review, feedback, do not get 
discouraged...do it.

Stef

On 17 déc. 04, at 06:54, Russell Penney wrote:

> Tim,
>    The idea is to do things in 2 parts with FileStream (Standard or
> otherwise) being the link between the FileSystem and Codecs. I 
> envisage 2
> packages one for the filesystem framework and one for the Codec 
> framework.
> Other packages will add codecs to the framework so Ogg would be a 
> separate
> package (as would MP3, JPEG, etc).
>
> I will search the archives for the innumerable discussions but could I 
> ask
> you what you think is important?
> I have a URI implementation that I like and Michael Rueger is sending 
> me
> another. The main difference between mine the others I have seen is 
> that I
> separate out the extension allowing mapping of filename and extension 
> on
> systems that don't support it natively (i.e. RiscOS).
>
> My plan is to have nearly everything written in Squeak with very basic
> primitives, that way it allows more control.
>
> Fundamentally there are 3 classes:
> File handles file access
> Directory handles directory access
> FileSystem handles the raw access and provides a unified interface for 
> Files
> and Directories.
>
> Russell
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
>> [mailto:squeak-dev-
>> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Tim Rowledge
>> Sent: Friday, 17 December 2004 9:07 AM
>> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> Subject: RE: About a new roadmap for 3.9
>>
>> "Russell Penney" <russell.penney at tincanct.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I am up for cleaning my reader however I was planning to
>>>> write a URI
>>>>> based file framework to replace what lives under FileStream and I
>> A small bit of advice - don't start off by tying them together. A
>> better filesystem is a big thing and needed much more generally than
>> for a music player.
>>
>> I assume you've exhaustively read the archives for the innumerable
>> discussions we had on the subject of file system rewrites? Some of it
>> actually included some good ideas. I think you should find some useful
>> code relating to URIs etc if you track it down.
>>
>> The key problem with something like a new file system is not the large
>> amount of work it involves (been there, done that several times too
>> often) but the work of getting people to adopt it. You'll need all the
>> good wishes that will surely be beamed your way from those of us
>> wanting an improved FS.
>>
>>
>> tim
>> --
>> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
>> Useful random insult:- Settled some during shipping and handling.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>