[physfs] 2.0 wishlist...

Brian Hook hook_l at pyrogon.com
Tue Sep 21 10:10:25 EDT 2004

> We need to talk about this more. Would a model where you turn off
> security checks be sufficient?

I think so, like we discussed previously with a new API entry point.  
Of course, there's the complication of how to handle global path names 
like D:\Documents and Stuff\My Game\ToolX\Data etc. and having that 
processed "correctly".  Possibly the security stuff simply doesn't do 
ANY "canonicalization" in tool mode?  That way the Windows coders can 
call GetOpenFileName (or whatever that's called) and just take the 
output and send it straight in, and it reduces complexity in Physfs 
since it doesn't have to do stripping/normalization for every 

> Do you need a PHYSFS_file handle but
> otherwise don't care about search and write paths? 

Pretty much.  Most common case for tools is "Save As" and "Open" and 
"Import" type stuff, where you're going to be dealing with an absolute 
file name.  I suppose it's possible that a tool developer might want 
to restrict the write paths, but since no major commercial tool today 
does this, I'm not sure if that's really something we need to shoot 
for as a high priority.


More information about the physfs mailing list