Re: fs-independent quotas

["James K. Lowden" <jklowden%schemamania.org@localhost>]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:09:27 +0000
David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:

> I've been intending to rework the quota system. 

Thank you. 

>  - The choice of "class" for types-of-ID and "type" for types-of-thing
> is somewhat arbitrary. One might argue that it would make more sense
> the other way around. I could be persuaded to switch it (or to change
> to other terms) but speak up fast. I do think being clear about these
> as different kinds of things is a good idea; 

I'm glad you raised this point, because it was my only concern.  You
had to clarify these terms in your description.  Why?  Because "type"
and "class" are indistinguishable abstract nouns.  I'm of the type who
prefers to classify concretely!  

Two pairs that strike me as more mnemonic:

        id, target
        principal, securable

The first sound bsdish to me.  The latter pair I've seen used in
security contexts.  Both have the advantage that one is surely a person
or pseudoperson, and the other surely is not.  (I don't know what it
takes to make the insecure person secure, but disk quotas are
definitely out.)  

One more pair:

        account, stobj ("storage object")

would also serve, by the same reasoning.  

Regards, 

--jkl