Re: [GNOME VFS] Re: Daemons [Was: gob inside gnome-vfs ...]

[Bruce Robert Pocock <brpocock 10east com>]

On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 19:27, Dick Porter wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 12:39:38PM -0700, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 02:33, Dick Porter wrote:
> > > 
> > > And doesnt GConf already give you all of those things?  Has anyone thought
> > > about using that for storing metadata?
> > 
> > Yes, except we found a few cases where you'd want to attach larger files
> > as metadata (for example, an icon), and GConf did not seem appropriate
> > for storing this sort of data.
> 
> So wouldnt it make sense to fix/extend/whatever GConf to cope with larger
> blobs of data than write a whole new system?

I think that would either require *major* changes to GConf or a break in
user expectations. EG: If user A sets up a directory (emblems,
backgrounds, whatever) and then user B looks at it, shouldn't user B see
user A's settings?

Some of these could be "vital" - e.g. using emblems to indicate
finalized projects, applying "Notes" to files, and the like. Granted,
this relies upon (directory) +w permissions, since the metadata is
stored in the directory itself, but this is a seemingly-reasonable way
to manage administrative controls for now. (Windows users already get
horribly confused if a file comes up with the "unknown type" icon, and
re-send the eMail 5 and 10 times because the message must not have gone
through right... that's a fairly similar effect...

Using GConf would require having shared keys that individual users could
write to (a big bag o' security nightmares), or else just saying "some
changes you make, other people can see (renaming a file, changing
permissions), others are just for you (emblems, icon placement); it's up
to you to find out which is which."

"Foisted upon the user" again...

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers