Re: gnome-vfs dependency for bonobo (was gnome_mime vs. gnome_vfs_mime)

[Ettore Perazzoli <ettore helixcode com>]

> You should speak to Ettore about the gnome-vfs design, because we've made no
> substantive changes to the basic structure since he created the module.
> We've just filled out the implementation and fixed 100s of bugs. 

  I believe the basic design of GNOME VFS is very sound, although it's
limited in the fact that it treats everything as files.  I have known
this was not enough for a while, but whenever I tried to extend the
design to make it more powerful, I got a "no-no" from the Nautilus
people (specifically you), saying that any API change would slow down
development too much and that the changes were not very important
anyway.

  I still had the power to do the changes (as I was the maintainer and
originator of the module), but I didn't make them because I did not want
this to become an obstacle for the development of the GNOME 2.0 file
manager.

  So, the limitations in the design and API are hardly my fault, as I
have been pushing to extend them all the time.  And now I also have to
hear what follows...

> The gnome-vfs API is only necessary for Nautilus because we built on top of
> it at Miguel's suggestion. Are you saying that gnome-vfs is now considered a
> technical dead end? If so, Miguel and Ettore essentially led us into a trap,
> because we had planned our project without gnome-vfs and they strongly
> suggested that we use it, saying that all of GNOME would be using it for
> GNOME 2.0.

  After having stepped down from the GNOME 2.0 file manager and the
GNOME VFS for the sake of the GNOME community, I personally find this
sentence pretty ungrateful and even downright insulting.

  There is no trap, there is no dead end.  When we talked to you guys,
Nautilus wasn't even started, and Gnomad (the precursor to Nautilus) was
a private project and wasn't even using any of the GNOME technologies
that were new and cool at the time (no Bonobo, no GNOME VFS, no
GdkPixbuf).  We helped you guys in any way to be able to use them, and
make Nautilus the official GNOME 2.0 file manager, taking advantage of
the platform as much as possible.

  Nobody forced you to use GNOME VFS and the other technologies; you
definitely agreed on these technical choices.  This also turned out to
be an advantage for Nautilus, and an overall improvement for GNOME, as
it allowed those technologies to be tested and evolve.

  GNOME VFS is still there and is going to be part of GNOME 1.4 and
GNOME 2.0.  I don't see how this is a dead end in any way.  If anything,
GNOME VFS has allowed you guys to implement asychronous and
network-transparent access without the headache that starting from
scratch would have certainly caused you.

  The fact that now we have a cool moniker design that makes sense and
that monikers can do everything GNOME VFS does and more, surely doesn't
mean that the original choice was wrong.  GNOME VFS was the coolest
thing we had at the time, and now things are just evolving, as it always
happens in the software world.

  I also don't remember hearing of any alternative non-GNOME VFS design
that would also be network-aware and asynchronous from you guys.  Andy
actually contacted me about GNOME VFS long before Nautilus even existed.

  So, I would hardly call all of this "a trap".  It's also sad that,
after my effort to do the best for the community, giving up projects
that were important to me, I have to be accused of "trapping" people. 

  Anyway, this is getting wildly off-topic.  I just had to answer this,
as I felt personally attacked.

-- 
Ettore