Re: Suggestion for file type detection approach

[James Su <suzhe turbolinux com cn>]

Yes, I think this is a better way.

Regards
James Su

Christian Neumair дµÀ:
> On Do, 2003-12-25 at 14:48 -0300, Fabio Gomes wrote:
>
> > I've spent some time today thinking about the costs and benefits of the
> > two approaches used today in GNOME to determine the MIME Type of a file.
>
> Thanks! We need such constructive input.
>
>
> > Also, I've done some experiments and tweakings to check the impact that 
> > file sniffing has over nautilus performance. It's impressive. See below.
>
> [...]
>
> > Currently, these two approaches are combined in the directory listing of
> > Nautilus in a bit unclear manner. There seems to be some priority
> > mechanism to decide wether the type of a file will be decided by content
> > or suffix. However, the content is always read and tested.
> >
> > Additionaly, there are some proposals of implementing some kind of
> > fallback, to test the contents of the file only when not able to
> > determine by suffix.
> >
> > IMO, we could think a bit more and combine these two approaches in a way
> > very different from simply doing the two things when reading the
> > directory. 
>
> [...]
>
> > with sniffing    : 21 seconds
> > without sniffing : less than one second
> >
> > I had similar difference with many folders of my machine, including
> > /lib, /usr/lib, etc.
>
>
> OK, here my proposal:
> We could do two runs. In the first run, we simply don't sniff at all and
> show the files ("Unknown Type"). While it is shown, we could start a
> second run that checks for the MIME type (either by content or by
> extension, is it worth a GConf pref?) and determine the actual file
> type.
>
> regs,
>  Chris