Date   : Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:36:22 +0200
From   : Wouter Scholten <wouters@...>
Subject: bbc diskimages & virtual file system

Robert Schmidt wrote:
> 
> Wouter Scholten wrote:
> > well, what fields would you want to add? This is not a INI file
> > containing entries for various programs.
> 
> Now *that* was a mistake for Microsoft to allow in the first place.
> Common INI files (like WIN.INI and SYSTEM.INI) are mostly obsolete now.
> Apart from this, I find the INI-format ideal to use for almost any kind
> of run-time options, configuration and initialization.

Ok, but my main point is that there's nothing you could add to the disk
information itself.
All other relevant data is in the diskimage and that should be handled
by utilities
and the emulators.
 
> > I don't see an argument for elaborating too much in such files. If
> > someone doesn't know what the numbers mean he shouldn't use them. This
> > is a utility writer thing.
> 
> A bit of a hostile attitude, don't you think...?  ;-)

Yep, that's me :-)


> > > A similar format for *.inf files would also be beneficial, I think,
> > as
> > > it is much more intuitive for new users.  (If there ever is a
> > majority
> > > for this, changing the archive to reflect the format we agree upon
> > is an
> > > automatic process.)
> >
> > No, I don't see that at all.
> 
> What, that they are intuitive (uhm, look again - INI-files are the
> American, spoon-feeding way) or conversion as an automatic process (a
> perl or 4NT script can do it in <10 lines)?

That they are intuitive. The INI format you suggested for dsk's is far
less readable than
the single line 'DFS DS 40T 10S 256B' and the same goes for any
rearranging of .inf's. This presupposes a bit of knowledge, but not
much.
(BTW, intuitive means that you quickly see what's meant, not like the
INI which spells out exactly what is meant. No need for intuition
there!)


> > Furthermore, by new users you mean people who USE the software. They
> > are
> > dependent on others to provide conversion utilities which means they
> > don't have to look at the .inf files.
> 
> I've often needed to manually edit INF files (to tweak addresses or
> exotic file names, for example).

But you're not the average user. I presume this fixes problems that
those downloading
the programs would have to fix if you didn't (?).

deweger wrote
>Sounds fine to me. However, it would be nice to have:
>- a default option, (DFS DS 80 10 256) would suit, I think,
>  so that in many cases no .dsk file is needed;

As I said in my suggestion. Although the logical default would be SS,
not DS.

>- a way to specify the disk format without having to create
>  a .dsk file, e.g. by means of command line parameters or interaction
>  with the program

Yep. bbcim097 will have this.


Another suggestion:
Virtual filesystem.

This would allow starting applications from within an emulator and
setting all starting options correctly just like the 6502em scripts do
to start the emulator for a program, i.e. we could use the 6502em
scripts, and access these through a uniform filesystem which accesses
anything (archive format, diskimages, virtual)

e.g. ELITE.bbc
LoadRom BASIC
PAGE=&E00
CHAIN""ELITE"

We could use the 6502em script format for this.
and a command *VRUN to execute the program, which means CHAIN"ELITE" in
this case.
The indexfile would not be necessary as this is in the .inf's (NEXT
name), unless one wants to use tapefiles in diskimages.

*VCAT lists the files.


Wouter