Re: fts improvements, alternatives

David Schultz wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>>
>>As it happens, I started tinkering with these ideas 
 >>[about a better way to traverse directory trees] a
>>while ago but haven't found time to finish it all.
>>
>>Here's a snapshot of the current WIP:
>>
>>http://people.freebsd.org/~kientzle/libarchive/src/tree.tgz
> 
> Nice.  That's much cleaner than the fts implementation (although
> it doesn't do all that fts does.)  So tell me again: when did you
> say were you planning on rewriting/fixing fts?  ;-)

The basic problems with fts are hard to fix
without breaking the API badly.  On the other
hand, augmenting "tree" to the point that it can
replace fts in many (but not all) applications
would interest me.

Since you've done more work with fts-using applications
than I have recently, you tell me:  What does
"tree" absolutely require to be usable in a broad
cross-section of applications?  It already does
what bsdtar needs, of course.

Accepting a sort parameter is probably not in the
making, of course.  Part of the whole point to "tree"
is that it doesn't store a lot of data at one time.
fts has to be better at something, right? ;-)

Tim