Hello Bob!

18 Oct 03 15:32, Bob Jones wrote to Mike Tripp:

 BJ> Definately.  But it is a lower priority than getting other things
 BJ> working that don't work at all vs fixing know issues with something
 BJ> partially working at this time....  All a matter of priorities.

Understood.  Get what's not working semi-working.  Get what's semi-working
working.  Once you know what works, go redo it the way it should've been
done.

 BJ> Would you like to go after the path issues within the code, taking
 BJ> care to keep both DOS, OS/2, Win32 and Linux / Unix file name and
 BJ> path conventions in mind?

Sure I'd like to!  Just don't have the time, tools, or C experience.

It seems like this cat should've been skinned before, since the Unix
conventions were born in the 60's and the rest in the 80's.  Network
operating systems have also been handling simultaneous access by mixed
clients of the various types as well.  With the other Fido apps already
addressing it, there ought to be code/algorithms around for
beg/borrow/stealing.  Simpler said than done, I know.

 BJ> Both of these items still bite weather we adhear to the 8.3 naming
 BJ> convention or not....

So if you take care of drive letters and slash directions, what currently
supported filenames are invalid as Linux filenames?   This is an area where
my perception is that it is only "going for more" that's
interfering with retaining what's already there.

 BJ> And we have yet to address the 8.3 naming convention that exists
 BJ> in the file areas.  [Note that while OS/2 and Win32 platforms
 BJ> support long file names, the Maximus BBS file areas do not support
 BJ> such for the upload / download files.]  Yes, this is an area that
 BJ> needs work.

I'm gonna have to take the doom-and-gloom stance on enhancements in this
area. There's probably a ton of bigger exchange issues with the limitations
of mailer session protocols, file transfer protocols, client support in
terminal programs, TICK/HATCH utils etc. that are beyond the scope of the
BBS program to address.  It's in the category of huge messages...something
that you can hack for limited usage and limited distribution, but one man's
"feature" becomes everyone else's "headache" in a
network.

 BJ> The message side of the BBS has supported long file names for some
 BJ> time, and I've used that on the OS/2 version of Maximus....

Yes, I've notice that even the longer tagnames of backboned echomail areas
are not utilized for backboned file distribution areas (8 chars max, UPPER
only). Coincidence?

.\\ike

--- GoldED 2.50+