Re: automounting / autorunning

[David Zeuthen <david fubar dk>]

On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 09:39 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> So, the lesson to learn here is that "local" isn't a well defined word,
> and should be avoided in the UI. Instead we should use specific well
> defined names, and if we need add multiple of them instead of combining
> use of a vague one for several things.
> 
> In this case, maybe something like g_volume_should_automount()?

Very good points, thanks for the summary. Thinking about it
g_volume_should_automount() is actually very good (I didn't like it at
first). One nice point is that this way of wording it doesn't imply
guarantees about the content per se. This is nice because some mounts
(e.g. /) may have subtrees (e.g. /mnt/nfs) that are slow. The only bad
thing is that "automount" is a pretty overloaded word but I guess we can
make up for that by having good docs.

Some mounts may not have volumes though. In this case we'd just assume
FALSE and avoid sniffing the mount right? This may be a problem for
things like Bluetooth e.g. in addition to a gvfs backend for BT you'd
need to write a BT volume monitor too. That maybe not be a problem, it
may actually be what you want to do.. I don't know.

    David