Re: [GNOME VFS] Re: where to put tar storage object...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com> writes:

> > gnome-vfs is also getting support for more and more cool stuff like
> > NFS, SMB, digital cameras, ssh, etc, and continuing to duplicate all
> > this seems wasteful.
> > 
> > Is there a good technical reason to write a whole new virtual
> > filesystem instead of layering on top of the existing one?
> 
> For a storage backend you can always use something like
> bonobo_storage_new ("gnome-vfs") and get away with life.
> 
> The main difference between the gnome-vfs, and monikers is that
> monikers are used to implement an object-based name space, while the
> gnome-vfs is a fine abstraction for naming files and directories.  The
> moniker space goes well beyond this.

Yes, I understand what monikers do. However, we need both a file
system abstraction and an object-based namespace. A file system
abstraction can be used to implement parts of the object-based
namespace, since it handles an important part of hydrating an object
from a data source, to wit, reading the data.

However, instead of reusing this code, I see moniker code being
written that include code to directly manipulate various
filesystem-like things, instead of using the existing filesystem
abstraction layer we have.

So in summary, I am not arguing against monikers, I am arguing in
favor of code reuse, and suggesting that moniker implementations
should use gnome-vfs where appropriate. That way, when we support new
functionality at the virtual filesystem level, we can automatically
make it available to the object namespace layer.


Regards,

Maciej