>>  I have no interest in chopping on the great work being done by
>> you and my other friends in Pharo, but that doesn't mean it is
>> feasible for me to use it in my business.  While someone in the Pharo
>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an
>> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference.
>>
> incremental?
> do you think you can implement a memory-based and/or git-based filesystem or
> 'remotely connected database-based file system'
> by just doing incremental changes to FileDirectory?
> good luck with such 'increments' :)

Yes, of course those capabilities could be added simply with factoring
work and little disruption to the API.  That's the promise object
technology, encapsulation.

Colin made a gorgeous domain model of an abstract FileSystem, no doubt
about it.  If we switch to it in Squeak I'm sure I will be happy once
the conversion is done.  I just think its worth asking, though,
whether a "core" system should provide that rich a model
out-of-the-box or instead just a bland, one-layer-above-the-primitives
lightweight model ready to be easily wrapped by the user's _own_ rich
model of a FileSystem.  Is the core system suitable for tiny embedded
programs and will they want a rich model or a basic one?  Maybe Spoon
will allow us to have our cake and eat it too..?