Re: Plans for gnome-vfs replacement

[Mathieu Lacage <Mathieu Lacage sophia inria fr>]

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > > We still need to support URIs too at least in some places, because of
> > > > '%u' in .desktop files. If GNOME apps switched to using '%f', then
> > > > konqueror (and old versions of GNOME) wouldn't be able to pass remote
> > > > files to them any more. Likewise, if nautilus/libgnomedesktop didn't
> > > > support using URIs for remote files any more, then they wouldn't be able
> > > > to pass remote files to KDE apps.
> > > 
> > > I think URI should still be used to refer to resources "from outside"
> > > and to contact the appropriate backends. But internally GFile or
> > > GFilePath objects should be used. That is, the user types in an URI, the
> > > library resolves the URI to a GFile and passes a serialized form of the
> > > GFile to the daemon.
> > 
> > I remember asking in 2000 why gnome-vfs did not use GnomeVFSUri in the
> > API rather than raw uris but I cannot remember what the answer was. Does
> > anyone know the rationale behind not using a more abstract structure for
> > uris in gnome-vfs ?
> 
> It does. In some places, but not in others. In both ways in some places
> even! Its just a nightmare...

Yes, it is a nightmare.

The reason why I ask is that I remember someone explaining the rationale
behind using uris always and I seem to remember that at that time, most
of the API had only uris rather than GnomeVFSUri. I am growing old :/
Unfortunately, I have lost all of my email archives from before jan
2001.

Mathieu
--