Re: My Usual Confusion

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 14:40:34 +0200 CEST "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@pinc-
software.de> wrote:
> Tyler Dauwalder <tyler-cyCl/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > PS: How about a BPartition::GetDiskSystem(BDiskSystem*)? Then
> > > BPartition::ContentType() wouldn't even need to have any strong
> > > relationship with the disk system's (pretty) name.
> > Having seen the way types would need to laid down using the 
> > Type()/ContentType() system, I'd actually much rather just go back 
> > to 
> > using Type() only (semantically like our current ContentType()) 
> > than 
> > do 
> > this. Though a GetDiskSystem() call could still be useful.
> > 
> > What do you think? :-)
> 
> What about leaving ContentType() to what it is now and change Type() 
> so 
> that you can use the partition type in a switch case statement like:
> 
> switch (partition->Type()) {
> 	case BPartition::B_FILE_SYSTEM_TYPE:
> 		...
> 		break;
> 	case BPartition::B_PARTITION_SYSTEM_TYPE:
> 		...
> 		break;
> }
> 
> ?

What your switch statement does can easily be done using 
BPartition::IsPartitionable(), which (unless I'm mistaken -- I 
remember, we discussed that) returns whether the partition's disk 
system is a partitioning system.

> BTW is there any way to get to a partition without a disk system 
> object 
> at all? If so, GetDiskSystem() would not only be useful, I think.

Mmh, maybe I misunderstand you, but a BDiskSystem is not necessary to 
get a BPartition. The only we to get a BPartition is via 
BDiskDeviceRoster. I think, GetDiskSystem() is not only useful, but 
even necessary. Since how, otherwise, would one get the responsible 
disk system otherwise? The partition's type can't be translated to a 
disk system name, I believe.

CU, Ingo