Re: 2.4 Proposed Modules - nautilus-cd-burner and gnome-vfs funkines s
- From: James Henstridge <james daa com au>
- To: Murray Cumming Comneon com
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: 2.4 Proposed Modules - nautilus-cd-burner and gnome-vfs funkines s
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 17:27:30 +0800
Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
So, there's a danger of another load thread here, but I can't help myself.
I'm sorry for the rambling nature of this email - it's because I see a
problem but not a solution:
I'm not happy with the way nautilus-cd-burner exposes the funky burn:///
gnome-vfs protocol/location, or with the strangeness of having a virtual
stuff-that-I-might-burn-soon location via the file manager.
[snip interesting comments]
I think the major reason for the proliferation of URI schemes is because
that is how gnome-vfs is structured. You write a gnome-vfs module, and
it handles a virtual file system under a given URI scheme.
There isn't really any way for one vfs module to easily delegate control
of a subtree to another module without a fair bit of work. If gnome-vfs
had facilities for setting up these sort of "mount points", then people
would probably use them.
I don't think people are going round creating new URI schemes for the
hell of it. I also don't think they are doing it to piss off Daniel.
But in the current framework, that is the direction they are pushed.
James.
--
Email: james daa com au
WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]