Re: adding new info to GnomeVFSFileInfo



On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 00:24, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> Le mer 18/09/2002 à 22:02, Ian McKellar a écrit :
> > >From looking through my kernel/glibc headers I'm fairly certain that
> > only 16 bits are used.
> 
> Yeah, I also looked at that, I don't know at all if that is the same on
> solaris, or whichever non-linux system you prefer.

Looks similar on Solaris. I don't have anything else handy.
> 
> > 
> > Hmm, you're right - I'm dumb. I just skim-read the access(2) manpage.
> > Perhaps make that static function not return a GnomeVFSResult if it has
> > no way of detecting errors.
> 
> It can, I just have to check errno when I get -1 (I'm just a bit lazy :)

Well, if access(2) returns an error, its mostl likely that the file
isn't readable, writable or executable :)
>
> > 
> > [*] http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_23.html#SEC23
> 
> Yeah, let's start some flames about coding style!! Then we'll go on with
> emacs vs vi :)

Well, since the project has traditionally been closely connected with
Nautilus we use the Nautilus coding style. Theres no reason to change
that. Oh, and vi is the official GnomeVFS editor ;-)
> 
> > Also we have to think about what "excutable" means in the context of
> > GnomeVFS. Seth has grand (in my opinion cracked-out) ideas about remote
> > program invocation but until we have some solution there I'm not sure if
> > we should expose execute access information through this interface till
> > then - for remote files anyway, though perhaps we should so that
> > Nautilus can attach emblems and stuff. *shrug*
> 
> I have no strong opinion on that. What I'm interested in is getting read
> and write info for remote files. For the executable bit, I agree that it
> doesn't make much sense. And Nautilus shouldn't consider remote files as
> executable since if the user double click on them, nothing will happen
> (or at least the user won't get the expected result). So I'll drop the
> executable bit for remote locations for now when I update my patch

I think thats a good idea. If and when we provide an execution
abstraction and remote methods start providing implementations of that
they can start setting the bit :)

Ian

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]