Re: GnomeVFSURI being removed...

["Shahms E. King" <shahms shahms com>]

> I don't know. I used to be strongly in favour of deprecating GnomeVFSURI
> because some people gave some compelling arguments - I think mostly that
> it would significantly reduce the number of entry points. Also, we can
> totally provide a URI manipulation API that isn't as tied to gnome-vfs
> as the current one - a GnomeVFSURI cannot represent a URI that is not
> supported by GnomeVFS - and thats lame.
> 

Well, not being able to represent a URI that's not supported by GnomeVFS
is lame, and I suppose most of the operations done on the URI can be
done with raw strings, it's a lot uglier, though, and we have to parse
the URI every time we want to do something to it.  In what way do you
mean that GnomeVFSURI can't represent a URI not supported by GnomeVFS?
GnomeVFSURI doesn't check to see that there is an available module to
handle the request, and the general URI format is specified by an RFC,
so as long as it handles that RFC, I'd say it shouldn't have to support
things that looks similar to URIs but violate the spec and so therefor
aren't URIs to begin with.

--Shahms