JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "VFS3 and symlinks": http://community.jboss.org/message/528571#528571 Author : John Bailey Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/johnbailey Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that having it force canonical every time would be a bit expensive for something that will occur somewhat infrequently.  I have however seen symlinks used in large infrastructures in the past.   What I question is why we need to force it.  As long as all accesses to the file via URL use the same path (either symlinked or canonical), I don't think there is a problem.  The problem that existed in VFS2 with AS5 was specific to the way the URL was being manipulated when the VFS cache was creating permanent roots.  I don't think the same problem would exist in the current VFS3 setup.   What is being tested in the VFS symlink test does not seem like a real world test to me.  Since there would be no reason for someone to create the URL expecting the inner archive to be a valid path to use as it doesn't exist on the filesystem unless they are using the VFS.  I could only see them getting that URL through the VFS in some way and then manipulating it after.   The reason I fail to see this scenario happening in real life is there is an assumption someone is going to take a URL from a VirtualFile from within a zip filesystem and turn it into a File object to then get the canonical file.  This will already not work for zip filesystems as the initial File does not actually exist. on the real filesystem whether symlinked or not.  The other option is someone has to take a URL run through a process to convert it to a canonical URL and then use that for mounting, and then later on someone is going to ask for files using the symlinked URL.  I can't see any reason for symlinked URLs to just be magiced up later in the execution.   I am sure I am missing something, but it seems like as long as nothing within AS takes URLs and manipulates them to get the canonical URL we should be fine.  But maybe just to be sure we need to come up with some kind of solution. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/528571#528571