Re: VFS for legacy apps

On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 15:11 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
> 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.

At the first "/" in the path element we'll be into the mountpoint. We
can't look for options on all files inside the mount.

> > > 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?

In gvfs currently there is smb-network (i.e. smb:///)
In gnome-vfs there are things like computer:, network:, cdda:, burn:.
Another example would be the remote version of file:/// (access files on
the machine that runs the session bus as discussed earlier in this

 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's an ungodly Republican vagrant living undercover at Ringling Bros. Circus. 
She's a blind tempestuous opera singer trying to make a difference in a man's 
world. They fight crime! 

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