Re: gvfs archive backend
- From: "Benjamin Otte" <otte gnome org>
- To: "Tim Kientzle" <kientzle freebsd org>
- Cc: nautilus-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: gvfs archive backend
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:57:13 +0200
Sorry that it took a while to answer, but I wanted to get a definite
answer on what will happen with the archive stuff.
So here's the whole history of what happened:
- I managed to finish a proof-of-concept of an archive backend in a
day or two. Libarchive has a great API after.all :) The result can be
seen at http://people.freedesktop.org/~company/stuff/nautilus-archive.png
- Alex was that impressed by it, that he just merged it into the
stable 2.22.0 branch and decided to ship it in Fedora 9.
- A long discussion ensued about adding this feature in a stable release cycle.
- Lots of people (mostly distro QA) started testing this backend.
- Finally, it was decided to not inroduce this feature in the stable release.
- Distros had mixed reactions about it. Some will ship the new archive
support (like Fedora 9) and some won't (like Ubuntu Hardy). The main
criticism was incomplete integration into the Nautilus file manager
and buggy support for users' common archive formats ISO and ZIP.
And this is where we stand today.
The next Gnome release coming in September will definitely see the
archive support becoming mainstream. And with that, the rest of the
distributions will include libarchive in their main trees. And with
that, in the shorter term we (and in turn you) will see lots of
requests for supporting weird features and formats (mostly ZIP and
ISO), hopefully including patches from us. :)
Mid-term I'd like to improve the performance when extracting
information from archives to make accessing remote archives more
performant. This includes the need for random access to archives and a
better way to access only selected metadata of files - an example
would be doing an initial parse of the archive, where we are only
interested i the root directory and its contents. ISO for example
would nicely support that. Another thing is of course extracting a
file, which currently requires opening the archive, skipping entries
until we arrive at the desired one and then doing the extraction with
a way to directly jump to the file if possible.
And yes, I'm aware that some formats (like gzip) don't allow random
access, but for the formats that do (which would be ZIP and ISO again)
it should be possible to implement it.
In the long term there is the question of adding support for modifying
archives. But that is so far away, that I'd rather not think about it
yet. For the forseeable future, I see the archive backend as
read-only, unless someone suddenly implements an archive_open_edit()
I'm also not sure how much time I am going to spend on hacking this
stuff, as I usually prefer to spend my unpaid time improving Swfdec
instead of hacking on GVfs. (Feel free to hire me to work on gvfs or
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Tim Kientzle <kientzle freebsd org> wrote:
> Benjamin Otte wrote:
> > I've recently been investigating how hard it would be to provide a way
> > for Gnome's new gvfs virtual filesystem to "mount" archives .
> Yours would not be the first such project I've
> heard of.
> For read-only access, I think that libarchive isn't a bad
> way to go, although it's focus on streaming may make it
> a bit less efficient for the application you have in
> mind. As you observed, update is a much trickier proposition.
> To answer a couple of questions you asked specifically about
> * It already reads both Zip and ISO9660, though it
> does use a streaming strategy that does not give it
> access to all features of such files.
> * Libarchive does use forward seeks to optimize reading
> listings from large uncompressed archives and does
> advertise the current file offset within the archive.
> Using these two features, you should able to rapidly
> skim any archive to generate a complete directory listing
> with offsets and then seek to read any single entry.
> (This won't work for ISO9660, but should work fine
> for tar, cpio, zip.)
> I think the key question you have to figure out is whether
> you want support for "generic archives" (including tar, cpio,
> etc) or whether you want to support one or two very specific
> The advantage of implementing specific formats is that you
> can take advantage of those formats in deep ways. The Zip
> file format in particular was designed with incremental
> update in mind and should work well for this type of
> Supporting archive mounting in a very generic fashion will
> probably require you to make some sacrifices: Either
> you'll have a pretty complex infrastructure or have to
> sacrifice some functionality. Libarchive chose to sacrifice
> some functionality largely in order to limit complexity.
> As for adding random-access support to libarchive, I can only
> say that I'm ambivalent. It could be a nice addition, but it's
> not a priority for me. I'll certainly consider any code that
> someone might send my way that implements such features, but
> whether I include it into my sources will depend on how well
> it integrates with the other things I'm trying to do. (In
> particular, I won't sacrifice streaming to support random
> access.) Anyone wishing to implement such an ambitious new
> feature should definitely familiarize themselves with the
> libarchive_test suite first. ;-)
> Of course, the code is openly licensed and you're welcome to
> copy any parts of it that you find useful or even fork the
> whole project if you like. (I do, of course, ask that you
> honor and preserve the existing source licenses.)
> Let me know what you decide to do, even if you decide
> not to use libarchive.
> > One last question: Are you on IRC?
> No, but I generally respond to email pretty quickly.
> Tim Kientzle
] [Thread Prev