On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 14:16 +0100, nf2 wrote: > Havoc Pennington wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I proposed the following a while back: > > > >http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/xdg/2003-September/002456.html > > > >I think it's more feasible than any sort of "one true API" approach. > > > >Havoc > > > > > > > The thing i'm proposing on my page (plugging the front-end of Gnome-VFS > into the backend of KIO) is a kind of a "shared backend" approach. > > From concept a "shared backend" would always be a fully equipped VFS > library with middleware, daemon and modules. It just needs all that > stuff to work (Perhaps with some little bits missing in the client part). > > So why not use Gnome-VFS as "shared backend" in KIO and start > redirecting protocols one by one as soon as the qualitiy of a Gnome-VFS > Module matches the KIO one (the migration you suggest). Might be less > work than writing a complete third VFS. The main problem I see in your proposal is that you are requesting that KDE adopts ORBit (and I think Bonobo is also required) inside their stack of dependencies and although I'm a GNOME user and developer don't see it as something good just to get a common VFS system, KDE developers don't like CORBA as a RPC system so I see difficult that they adopt your proposal. Havoc's proposal is more realistic, you create a common VFS layer that could be used with GNOME, KDE or any other desktop and then they use it directly or wrap it inside their current system. Perhaps you could merge your ideas with Havoc's ones so you get a better approach... Cheers. > > Cheers, > > Norbert > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-vfs-list mailing list > gnome-vfs-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list -- Carlos Perelló Marín Ubuntu Warty (PowerPC) => http://www.ubuntulinux.org Linux Registered User #121232 mailto:carlos pemas net || mailto:carlos gnome org http://carlos.pemas.net Valencia - Spain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part