Re: [gnome-network]downman description

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:35, Manuel Clos wrote:
> >>Next in my TODO list is:
> >>	- Moving to use gnome-vfs everywhere
> > 
> > this will mean rewriting most things in the daemon, which is similar
> > than starting from scratch, which is what Rodney is planning.
> Well, the downmand stuff, loading/saving projects, the scheduler, the 
> configuration, the client handling, the Projects, the Servers, the 
> download stuff doesn't need to be reimplemented.
> Your points can be summarized to:
> 	- Use gnome-vfs where I'm setting up the connection myself. This is 
> just cutting code.
> 	- Use gnome-vfs async interface where I have a different thread. This 
> is just not creating a thread but listen to events.
> 	- The daemon should be bonobo based, so that there is no need to create 
> the unix socket and use just bonobo for communication. Again just a 
> matter of cutting some code.
> I will say that this is easy to do, instead of saying that is similar to 
> starting from scratch.
I strongly disagree here. If you think moving to gnome-vfs and bonobo
does just mean cutting some code, then, I think one of us is totally
wrong :-)

> > yes, but the architecture does not fit, since there are a lot of things
> > that need to be reimplemented.
> Again, I don't see that _lot_ of things and I don't see the 
> reimplementation. I will do the gnome-vfs stuff to see how big the 
> changes are.
they are huge, and most of the things you are going to do are already
done in Rodney's emphetamine. So, we are not going to start from scratch
in any case. We are going to reuse as much as we can from the
implementation that best matches our goals, which so far is emphetamine.

> > Sorry if I sound a bit unpolite, it is not my intention at all, but you
> > keep saying that downman fits in with the archictecture we're talking
> > about, and from what I've seen, it needs almost to be
> > rewritten/re-architected to match that plan. I'd like to be wrong, and
> > really have downman be the solution to this discussion. This would end
> > up my current headaches of tying to keep you guys in agreement :-) and
> > will make you work in other gnome-network things.
> Is there any definition of the architecture/plan somewhere? I haven't 
> seen / readed it.
we've talked about it in this list.

> > I must say, to not sound so harsh to you, that the UI of gdownman is
> > nice, and if nobody has a better UI idea, we might end up reusing a lot
> > of your UI.
> I could even switch Gnome Download Manager to use libgnomenetwork, 
> because the UI _is_ separated from the daemon.
> I will better work on the gnome-vfs switch. Since gnome-vfs and bonobo 
> are your bigger (and only) worries I will work on it. Downman is not 
> only a simple http and ftp client getting bits and doing communication 
> over a traditional UNIX socket.
> So, to make it clear, are gnome-vfs and bonobo switches your worries? 
> does downman + gnome-vfs + bonobo fit in?
yes, more or less, but since we already have a somewhat done
implementation of that (emphetamine), I guess the best thing is to reuse


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]