Re: gnome-vfs/GIOChannel for parsing
- From: Colin Walters <walters debian org>
- To: gtk-devel-list gnome org, gnome-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: gnome-vfs/GIOChannel for parsing
- Date: 27 Feb 2003 16:44:02 -0500
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 00:29, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> I'm not enthused with parts the C# interface. It would greatly
> complicate the implementation of the various structured file
> readers/writers in gsf to support simultaneous reading and writing
> from a single stream.
Ok, I can understand that. I will separate out the proposal into
InputStream and OutputStream.
> There is also no mention of a Storage
> interface to go with it.
Storage interface? Could you explain?
> The Directory and DirectoryInfo classes
> seem more directed towards path parsing.
Yes; I am not sure about putting them into GStream. It seems cleaner
for us to just use the API for the filesystem you're accessing, be that
the local system or GnomeVFS.
> The buffer handling in gsf also seems more comfortable. By allowing
> the app to specify how to buffer the result the people who know
> their read patterns (the app) can tune things.
Fair enough, I guess. This is mostly an implementation issue though.
> Some of the interfaces, particularly the text reader/writer seem
> nice and would be easy to adopt in gsf-input-textline. Although it
> is unclear to me what is gained by making those interfaces rather
> than simple implementations.
In C# they are abstract classes, as they should be in GStream. But what
do you mean by "simple implementations"? What would they read from? C#
has both StreamReader and StringReader for example; both of these read
character data from a source.
> Your requirements focus on the text read/write there are several
> additional areas to be considered.
>
> - Structured files : the raison d'etre of gsf. The stream
> interfaces are all about reading data with no consideration
> for what MS calls 'storages', or structured files. This
> requirement is interesting in that the jury is still out on
> whether simple structured file support is sufficient, or
> whether we need full fledged file system in a file semantics.
>
> - to/from libxml : there are alot of gnome apps that are xml
> based. It is important that we be able to transition data in
> and out smoothly.
This is the kind of stuff that should definitely go in gsf, I think.
I'm not avocating for merging all of Gsf into glib or anything! I'd
just like to take the core bits to read and write streams. Gsf should
still exist as a separate library, and will just build upon the core
stream stuff. Do you agree?
> - Easy to retrofit stdio based apps. Having some simple stdio
> style wrappers is important to ease transition. When
> converting some of the older Gnumeric file format plugins this
> was a big help.
Ok, that seems reasonable.
> With respect to async i/o I could use some background on where you
> see it as necessary. It certainly seems useful, but hardly a core
> interface requirement.
See Michael Meeks' reply to this.
> While you're welcome to work on the project in gnome cvs I'd like to
> see a whole lot more discussion before code is generated.
Ok, I agree.
> gsf easily supports peeking at buffers and character based i/o.
> The trick is that it is not a requirement of the base GsfInput
> api. It gets handled in a wrapper. This simplifies the
> implementation of the various format handlers. Please update
> your doc.
Ok, done.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]