Re: VFS for legacy apps

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 15:11 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
> 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.

At the first "/" in the path element we'll be into the mountpoint. We
can't look for options on all files inside the mount.

> > > 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?

In gvfs currently there is smb-network (i.e. smb:///)
In gnome-vfs there are things like computer:, network:, cdda:, burn:.
Another example would be the remote version of file:/// (access files on
the machine that runs the session bus as discussed earlier in this
thread).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's an ungodly Republican vagrant living undercover at Ringling Bros. Circus. 
She's a blind tempestuous opera singer trying to make a difference in a man's 
world. They fight crime!