Re: Plans for gnome-vfs replacement


> Now, these are not quite posix operation, but they are not totally
> unlike it either. I'm not sure how this could be harder to map to ftp or
> http than posix? 

It will not be harder, but we will probably have the same problems we
had with the old gnome-vfs modules to implement the "backends" for HTTP
and FTP. I mean you cannot partially read a file or partially write it
using HTTP (see the "close" problem with HTTP module you described in
your mail).

So, the question is: do we really need a low-level API to read/write
files? Do you see real use cases where applications using VFS want to
partially read/write files (also considering that the real behavior will
be dependent on the backend implementation)?

I like the Havoc's idea about a using DAV as a model for a VFS API.


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