Re: Gnome VFS - plans for Gnome 2.8

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 21:52 -0800, George Karabin wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2004, at 9:51 AM, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 12:10, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 17:55, George Karabin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Have you looked at UPnP (http://www.upnp.org/)? It looks fairly
> >>> heavyweight, but it's targeted at some of the same sorts of things as
> >>> zeroconf/Rendezvous. I imagine the initial interest in mDNS and 
> >>> webdav
> >>> is for network file sharing. A short and sweet example of how UPnP
> >>> might be used for something similar is MediaServer
> >>> (http://www.upnp.org/standardizeddcps/mediaserver.asp). I'm sure 
> >>> there
> >>> are plenty of others.
> >>
> >> Wow. That looks pretty overengineered. xml, soap and all sorts of
> >> buzzwords. :)
> >
> > It's Microsoft-endorsed.  What do you expect?  ;-)
> >
> > I might be biased, but I think working towards Zeroconf is a much 
> > better
> > use of time.
> 
> Zeroconf is simpler and more UNIXy, and it'd be the way to go in a 
> technical vacuum. That said, I'd guess that (standard) GNOME has better 
> user-level support for SMB than NFS for a reason: SMB is used by more 
> "enterprise" servers than NFS, and more enterprise clients want to use 
> SMB shares.
> 
> I couldn't begin to guess which technology will end up winning the 
> consumer electronics service discovery "market", but sadly, I'd guess 
> that the dominating technology won't be chosen based on purely 
> technical merit. Hedging bets by supporting both zeroconf and UPnP (if 
> those doing the work have time) is probably not a much worse use of 
> time than supporting zeroconf alone.
> 
yes, I think it makes a lot of sense to try to support as many protocols
as possible.

cheers