Re: Plans for gnome-vfs replacement
- From: Paolo Maggi <paolo maggi gmail com>
- To: Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>
- Cc: Paolo Borelli <pborelli katamail com>, "gtk-devel-list gnome org" <gtk-devel-list gnome org>, Paolo Maggi <paolo gnome org>, "gnome-vfs-list gnome org" <gnome-vfs-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Plans for gnome-vfs replacement
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:32:36 +0200
> 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
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.
] [Thread Prev