Re: 2.4 Proposed Modules - nautilus-cd-burner and gnome-vfs funkines s

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:

> So, there's a danger of another load thread here, but I can't help myself.
> I'm sorry for the rambling nature of this email - it's because I see a
> problem but not a solution:
>
> I'm not happy with the way nautilus-cd-burner exposes the funky burn:///
> gnome-vfs protocol/location, or with the strangeness of having a virtual
> stuff-that-I-might-burn-soon location via the file manager.
>  
[snip interesting comments]

I think the major reason for the proliferation of URI schemes is because 
that is how gnome-vfs is structured.  You write a gnome-vfs module, and 
it handles a virtual file system under a given URI scheme.

There isn't really any way for one vfs module to easily delegate control 
of a subtree to another module without a fair bit of work.  If gnome-vfs 
had facilities for setting up these sort of "mount points", then people 
would probably use them.

I don't think people are going round creating new URI schemes for the 
hell of it.  I also don't think they are doing it to piss off Daniel.  
But in the current framework, that is the direction they are pushed.

James.

--
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/