Re: Not OK computer:/// [was Re: Should Desktop = Home?]

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 14:09 -0700, Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 08:46 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > a) It'll require large changes to the gnome-vfs internals for little
> > reason.
> I didn't think it actually would require large changes to the vfs
> internals, since the computer:, trash: and applications: -style
> locations look like they are pretty much defined and provided by
> Nautilus. You can't actually access a file via the computer:/// protocol
> using the VFS, for instance - what would be the point? However, you are
> probably intimately familiar with the implementation, and I could very
> well be wrong.

gnome-vfs is modular on the method level, not inside one method.
Changing it is surely possible, but a large change.

computer:/// is very much accessible via the VFS. So it
applications:///. trash is atm a nautilus-side thing, but thats

> > b) The proposed items don't even look like uris that gnome-vfs can use.
> > Is that second part the hostname? Why is making up hostnames that are
> > not hostnames any better than making up uri methods? At least the gnome-
> > vfs uris work like rfc uris, even if some are not rfc defined.
> Actually, you're incorrect. In a Nautilus location box, try typing
> "computer:///". Now try typing "computer:". There is no difference here
> - both specify exactly the same protocol. The "///" actually refers to a
> *path* to be accessed via the "computer" protocol. This is all exactly
> in line with the RFC.
> For your reference, have a look at
> section 2.1, where the simplest valid form of a URL is defined as  
> 	<scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
> It is entirely up to the scheme (protocol) to define what appears in the
> scheme-specific part... that is, everything after the colon. Try typing
> about:plugins in Mozilla.

URIs as defined by the ietf can look however they like, however, the
form of uris used by gnome-vfs have other expectations, both by gnome-
vfs and the apps that use it.  

> > c) We're trying to avoid exposing uris to users anyway, so this
> > shouldn't matter to users. And in the cases they are visible, we should
> > work to fix that. (But if you do know the uri schemes, surely its a lot
> > harder to remember/type these new versions.)
> The idea I am putting forward here would simplify things for users to an
> extent, but the change would really be more of an organizational one.
> Having a single 'scheme' namespace for shell-specific folders does make
> sense from a structural perspective, in my view. Better to encourage the
> use of a common addressing scheme than make up a new scheme every time
> we need a new shell location. Whether or not the user actually sees a
> mess of schemes or not doesn't strike me as a good reason to leave
> things the way they are.

You'd just make up the sub-scheme every time you need a new location.
Not a big difference. Certainly shouldn't affect users much (other than
all their links breaking when we change).

Anyway, I'm the gnome-vfs maintainer, and I say no. I refuse to make
large changes like this which are of little practical use. We've finally
gotten gnome-vfs to a state where it seems to sort of work. Now we need
to start using it in the desktop, not do random changes to the

 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's an obese zombie barbarian looking for 'the Big One.' She's a beautiful 
mutant research scientist with the power to see death. They fight crime! 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]