Re: Plans for gnome-vfs replacement

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 11:20 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> On Ter, 2006-09-19 at 09:19 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 18:47 -0300, Johan Dahlin wrote:
> > > It might be worth mentioning the advantages & disadvantages of including
> > > this directly in glib (as in cvs module/tarball) instead of separating it.
> > > 
> > > I'm all for including it in glib itself, but others might disagree,
> > > especially if it's going to be a big (eg, larger than gobject itself).
> > 
> > The advantage of shipping it inside glib would be that its "easier to
> > build", as you don't need to build multiple modules. However, I think
> > this is a false "easy", as the vfs part will have extensive weird
> > dependencies on things like samba and neon. This means that it gets very
> > complicated to build glib if you also want a full vfs.
>   Maybe the way to go would be to have the base VFS core library plus a
> standard file:// module in glib, but put any extra URI handling modules
> in another package higher in the stack, installing VFS plugins?

Of course we will ship enough code in glib that you get a usable system.
That includes reading local files, but perhaps not everything else. This
is really a hard requirement, as it is what makes it possible for
everyone to use the vfs API to read files and not have any unnecessary
dependencies, but yet will be able to access any vfs file when the
required modules or whatnot is installed.

Exactly how it will work depends on how we handle extension of the vfs.

 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's a witless flyboy vagrant with acid for blood. She's a man-hating 
cat-loving journalist prone to fits of savage, blood-crazed rage. They fight 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]