Re: File dialogs: Network access

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

Dylan Griffiths wrote:
> > Please remember that GNOME isn't, and shouldn't be, tied just to Linux.
> > *BSD, HP-UX, and Solaris should be able to run it too... ;-)
> >
> > I vote for the gnome-vfs (http://developer.gnome.org/arch/file/vfs.html,
> > but very outdated,
> > http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/934991555/index_html, exactly one year
> > old).
> > I'm not a programmer, so please correct me if I'm way wrong.
> 
> These are mutually exclusive goals: consistent interface, and portability.
> At least in the way you present it.
> 
> It is fundamentally impossible for you to make this policy decsision here
> and have it be helpful.  If we stuck to the OS VFS, we don't DoRRD the code,
> and we provide a consistent interface.  Having Yet Another Abstraction Layer
> will lead to inconsistencies at best, and a performance problem at worst.
> 
> I think we shouldn't be bending over backwards to provide an inconsistent
> interface, when the OS designers can add the appropriate hooks for the
> user-land programmers to implement user space FS handlers.

So portability is bad, and GNOME should be heavily tied to the Linux
kernel?

I don't see why you detest gnome-vfs. The work is being done as we speak
and is used both in Nautilus and Evolution.

Why is an abstraction layer like gnome-vfs so terribly bad? The
gnome-vfs _is_ (or should be) the consistent interface. If using
gnome-vfs, any portability changes will only have to be made to the
gnome-vfs as I understand it.

Care to explain?


Christian



#######################################################################
Christian Rose
http://www.menthos.com                    	    menthos@menthos.com
#######################################################################