Re: [OT] files/dir on windoze
Patrick Barnes wrote:
[rearranged quoting order]
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:33:35 +0200, Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Juergen Luethje
>>>> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:41:31 +0200
>>>>
>>>>> Does this happen with all versions of Windows, or just some?
>>>>
>>>> Kat wrote she was using Win 95B, I was using Win 98 (partition with
>>>> FAT 32, 7.58 GB total, 5.14 GB free, 4096 bytes per cluster). Elliot,
>>>> on what Windows version did you run your test?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Windows XP Pro, but still FAT32, not NTFS. This obviously seems to be the
>>> problem.
>>
>> Two of my programs split Unix mailbox files into separate e-mail files.
>> All e-mail files that originate from the same mailbox file are written
>> to one directory.
>>
>> One user wrote, that he has got mailbox files with a size up to about
>> 100 MB, containing about 28,000 messages. My programs build the file
>> names after the subject of the respective mail. He didn't report a
>> problem (maybe he uses NTFS), but I'm just calculating:
>>
>> - If any file name has 8+3 (+ the dot = 12) characters, they will occupy
>> 28000 * (1 + ceil(12/13)) = 28000*2 = 56000 entries in the regarding
>> directory. This is OK.
>> - If any file name has say 14 characters, all file names would occupy
>> 28000*3 = 84000 entries. This is not possible on a FAT system, as we
>> know now.
>>
>> Do you, or someone else, know a method, how an Euphoria program can
>> detect, what file system a given drive uses?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Juergen
>
> Actually, I wouldn't try and use longer filenames if I could...
> Why not use as many characters as you can -
> 01234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ - and store them that way....
>
> 5.3 format (assuming all the extensions have the same 3 letters) gives
> you 60,466,176 combinations - 60 million ought to be plenty...
> If the name of the file was to have meaning, then you could embed that
> in the file itself as meta-data
The subject of the mail is already contained *in* any mail anyway. But
users and I myself wanted the *filename* to be equal to the subject. I
have limited the filename to 64 characters, and nobody has complained so
far. But as I wrote previoously, even 14 characters sometimes can be to
much.
> - after all, the files would have to
> be parsed anyway, to see what the header info was.
Yes, of course.
> What was the driving force in using separate files?
The whole purpose of the programs is to split one or more Unix mailbox
files into separate e-mail files.
E.g. when someone uses an mail client that uses Unix mailbox files, and
wants to migrate to another mail client, that isn't able to import Unix
mailbox files, it's easy to split the mailbox files, and then import the
separate EML files.
Someone else e.g. uses the program to split the mailbox file that
contains the incoming mails in his company, and then he stores the mails
separately, according to the co-worker who is the recipient.
> MrTrick
Regards,
Juergen
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
