Re: [Tracker] Database access abstraction

["Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen" <mikkel kamstrup gmail com>]

2008/11/11 Jamie McCracken <jamie mccrack googlemail com>
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:48 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > > well tracker has to support virtual uri which is not necessarily
> > > supported by GIO so use of GFile is not really practical.
> > >
> > > Of course there are places where stuff is only file specific where use of gfile makes sense
> >
> > A GFile doesn't have to physically exist on disk.
> > Can you give an example where a virtual URI can't be a GFile?
>
> well say i use it to make a note thats stored only in tracker (and not
> in a file)
>
> the uri might be notes://mynote
>
> will gfile allow abritrary URi schemse to be used?

Without checking the docs I'd say it would have to. Constructing a
GFile should not do any IO per contract. Indeed the docs confirm this,
g_file_new_for_uri ():

"Constructs a GFile for a given URI. This operation never fails, but
the returned object might not support any I/O operation if uri is
malformed or if the uri type is not supported."

--
Cheers,
Mikkel