[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: No os.copy or lfs.copy?
- From: David Dunham <david@...>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:54:05 -0700
On 10 Apr 2008, at 04:05, gary ng wrote:
This is pretty off-topic, but resource forks are not
off-topic or not, I am curious to know why resource
forks are not metadata.
Because they are the actual data. Metadata is typically optional.
A Mac file can have BOTH data and resource forks, and BOTH can have
data in them.
For example, the Mac Classic outliner Acta saved text in the data fork
and sound annotations in the resource fork.
A blind copy would copy just the data fork, and thus strip out the
I know the Mac OS X "cp" command now deals with this, but I think this
behavior was added only in 10.3 or so.
Say if I have a 'file'(in modern day sense they are
just a byte stream), anything that is not in this
stream(which are not handled by read then write by the
file module) are metadata, no ?
You're still making the assumption that a file is a byte stream. It is
not. It's a collection of forks (the resource fork and the data fork
can each be considered byte streams).
I'm not as familiar with the recent Windows file systems which have
multiple forks, but I think they'd be a problem as well.
David Dunham Development Manager
+1 206 926 5722 GameHouse Studios