Howard Chu writes:
> Well, there's two possibilities here - on those oddball systems,
> either a solution exists, or it doesn't. Any system that can't provide
> binary byte-stream file semantics is going to have trouble with all
> kinds of URLs in all kinds of software, not just LDAP.
Well, they'd need to maintain such info about their URLs in separate
files instead of having the filesystem take care of it. And a local
fix could be to implement some other URL scheme than file:// - one
which knows of those separate files.
> As for DOS - that EOF marker isn't actually needed, since the directory
> structure records file sizes in bytes. Just a holdover from DOS 1.x or
> somesuch (CP/M perhaps?).
I guss I'll survive without porting full LDIF to CP/M:-)
> re: record-oriented files - mainframes have a great variety of
> these. (...) Having implemented structured file support in FTP for our
> mainframes a couple decades ago, and seeing how few other systems
> cared, I'd say it's no great loss.
That's good. For me this is all mostly a theoretical concern. Living
almost purely in a Unix word I didn't know how much it was a practical
concern somewhere as well.
Ldapext mailing list