Re: NFS/AFS and is_local

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 10:55:28AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> tis 2002-11-05 klockan 03.02 skrev Malcolm Tredinnick:
> 
> > This was a "fun" problem just before the 2.0.0 release when we suddenly
> > realised that Nautilus would not run with NFS-mounted home directories
> > (for exactly the same reason). Basically gnome_vfs_uri_is_local() is
> > being used for multiple things -- "I can write to this", "it's a fast
> > filesystem", [there are more, but I forget them all now].
> 
> When are we interested in the "it's a fast filesystem"? The place where
> I can see it used is for thumbnailing and doing stuff like that.

There was one place I came across where a gnome_vfs_uri_is_local() call
was being used to determine whether or not to display a progress bar
when copying -- in the sense that a local copy was going to be too quick
to worry about.

It was about that time that I thought this method was maybe being abused
for too many purposes. When I got into work the next day, Michael had
checked in the eel-vfs-extensions stuff, so I sort of lost interest in
the problem.  Your mail prompted recollections of a night in a hotel
room peering at Nautilus code until I went cross-eyed. Aah, the
memories. :(

> Since the user in many times won't know whether a certain directory is a
> mounted NFS/AFS or just another local directory I think we should treat
> it the same or it might be very confusing. In this case we are only
> interested in the "I can write to this" which should probably be handled
> by a gnome_vfs_uri_is_writable or something similar.
> 
> I know I was very confused at first since from the command line you
> don't see any difference between a local directory, a NFS mount or an
> AFS mount (except that they all appear in /afs).

I completely agree with these sentiments.

Malcolm

-- 
I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem.