Re: VFS for legacy apps

On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 09:16 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 14:22 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:

> > I suppose
> > 
> > ~/.vfs/smb:$server:$share/dir/file.txt:option=$value:option=$value

> You mean 
> ~/.vfs/smb:$server:$share:option=$value:option=$value/dir/file
> I assume?

No, I was assuming that the distinction between "share" and the first
path element was arbitrary. Which it might not be, I guess.

> > is a workable compromise. It might even be what Damon was indicating.
> > Now that we're picking on details, I'd say that .vfs or .gvfs would be a
> > better base directory than .mounts too.

> This would work, and would look better. It still requires specific code
> for each possible backend to map from path back to the mount info
> though. (i.e. you need to know that for smb the first two items are
> server and share.)

Which protocols don't require a server address? Which don't require a
path relative to the server? If none, will such realistically exist in
the future?

Hans Petter

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