Re: session module

> 
> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
> [partition order]
> > Anyway, at least under BeOS (and the OS that must not yet be named 
> > publicly) there shouldn't be any problem. Or do I overlook 
> > something=3F
> 
> Only that the device names will change due to such a change.

Yes, that's right.

> So it 
> might be nice for users to be able to specify mount settings via 
> volume 
> name as well, something like:
> 
> volume System /dev/disk/.../master/0=5F1 {
> 	read=5Fonly	true
> }
> 
> And the system would only apply the settings when either both of the 
> constraints are true, or something like this=3F

If there will be a GUI prefs app for that purpose one could even use 
more unique characteristics, like the device-absolute partition offset.

[...]
> > > Good questions, but I think this is the place where our module 
> > > priorities come into play again. Perhaps the apple style 
> > > partitioning 
> > > is only a virtual one which is there when there is a HFS disk=
> > > 3D3F
> > 
> > I'm afraid, I didn't get that. :-/
> > 
> > The only way out I see for this situation, was to try to let the 
> > file 
> > system modules recognize the session (i.e. virtual partition), 
> > even, 
> > if 
> > a partition module identified it positively.  The result would then 
> > be 
> > a session with some partitions the partition module found plus a 
> > virtual partition spanning the whole session. Don't know, if that 
> > is 
> > such a good idea.
> 
> No no, I think that's not a good idea, I was still on the wrong path 
> when writing the above paragraph :)
> There should only be the real partitions and the raw device, no 
> virtual 
> partitions spanning the whole session when there is none.

That seems to be the general opinion, so let's dismiss the idea. :-)

CU, Ingo