Re: VFS for legacy apps
- From: Hans Petter Jansson <hpj novell com>
- To: Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>
- Cc: "gnome-vfs-list gnome org" <gnome-vfs-list gnome org>, "gtk-devel-list gnome org" <gtk-devel-list gnome org>, Damon Chaplin <damon karuna eclipse co uk>
- Subject: Re: VFS for legacy apps
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:11:01 -0600
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 09:16 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 14:22 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
> > I suppose
> >
> > ~/.vfs/smb:$server:$share/dir/file.txt:option=$value:option=$value
> You mean
> ~/.vfs/smb:$server:$share:option=$value:option=$value/dir/file
> I assume?
No, I was assuming that the distinction between "share" and the first
path element was arbitrary. Which it might not be, I guess.
> > is a workable compromise. It might even be what Damon was indicating.
> > Now that we're picking on details, I'd say that .vfs or .gvfs would be a
> > better base directory than .mounts too.
> This would work, and would look better. It still requires specific code
> for each possible backend to map from path back to the mount info
> though. (i.e. you need to know that for smb the first two items are
> server and share.)
Which protocols don't require a server address? Which don't require a
path relative to the server? If none, will such realistically exist in
the future?
--
Hans Petter
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]