Re: [GNOME VFS] Re: GUADEC Issue discussion summary ...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

ERDI Gergo <cactus cactus rulez org> writes:

> So how about exploding the component priority list in the MIME database to
> be per-interface?
> Mathieu raised concerns about wether a real user interface can be created
> for managing (mime type, interface)->(component priority list) pairs, but
> my opinion is to certainly have the functionality in the backend and worry
> about user interfaces later (after all, it is a `power user feature'
> (sorry Darin))

It usually works better to design the interface first, and then the
mechanism; otherwise you are likely to end up with a mechanism that
can't support the interface you want very well.

> Michael's idea is to move gnome-vfs above Bonobo anyway, so we can move
> the moniker implementations into gnome-vfs (so we don't duplicate things
> like http, bzip2, etc in the monikers), and use the mime database to store
> priority lists there.

I think sharing code between gnome-vfs and file-oriented monikers is a
great idea. I'd be glad to help with it. I can imagine three ways to
do it:

* Put the monikers in gnome-vfs and make gnome-vfs depend on bonobo.

* Leave the monikers in bonobo and make bonobo depend on gnome-vfs.

* Put the monikers in a separate module and make it depend on both
  bonobo and gnome-vfs.

Is there some technical detail that would make this code-sharing
easier if the monikers were included in the gnome-vfs module? I am not
aware of one, but perhaps I'm missing something.

> If you think this is such a minor issue that it is basically a non-issue,
> imagine that currently, the result of resolving a moniker to a given
> interface is not determined -- i.e. you may get totally different
> components by resolving the same moniker to the same interface.

I agree this is bad.

-- 
Maciej Stachowiak
Eazel, Inc.