Re: lufs and gnome-vfs

On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 23:57, iain wrote:
> man, 2003-03-03 kl. 23:15 skrev Bastien Nocera:
> > Until that's done, it's a no-no. If you fancy spending your time
> > creating and then fixing kernel modules for things like HP-UX and
> > Solaris, go for it.
> > 
> > But at that point in time, lufs isn't an option for gnome-vfs.
> I don't see why not, at least not based on the "other OSes can't support
> it" reason. If its a compile time option and isn't a fixed requirement,
> then IMO it's fine, so long as someone wants to write it.
> Not all OSes version of X handles things like XRender, but I don't see
> that stopping GTK from using it where its available.
> Catering to the lowest common demoninator will leave us languishing,
> afraid to support anything remotely interesting because some other
> systems can't use it.
> Of course, any other arguments based on technical merits (or lack
> thereof) of lufs are perfectly valid reasons though

I guess that it's always possible to implement a gnome-vfs method that
would use that. Given the overlap in functionality (see which methods
are implemented in lufs and which ones are implemented in gnome-vfs), I
don't see much of a point.

The semantics of the two are also quite different. What is the point
exactly again ? ;)

Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]