On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 22:58, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 22:17, Ian McKellar wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 06:17, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > >
> > > Ian McKellar said:
> > >
> > > > it will also need to expose this GNOME_VFS_PERM_ACCESS_* API so that
> > > > apps who don't care about the details can find out what they want.
> > >
> > > That's what I wanted to say: I would like to at least deprecate (if not
> > > forbid) using the permissions member directly in favour of using
> > > setter/getter functions for two reasons:
> > >
> > [snip: redundancy, legacy helper]
> >
> > We have the GnomeVFSFileInfoFields enum that lets a module and/or
> > GnomeVFS explain to higher levels which parts of the FileInfo struct are
> > valid, so on filesystems that use ACLs rather than unix-style
> > permissions the unix permissions bit will not be set but the ACLs bit
> > will. Almost all apps (the exceptions being things like Nautilus that
> > are designed for inspecting the fileystem closely) will just look at the
> > PERM_ACCESS_* field and so won't care how permissions are done on the
> > filesystem.
>
> Ahh, that clarifies this for me. I should have look at what I want to
> meddle with a bit closer, eh?
Other than that apps accessing the field directly (after checking
GnomeVFSFileInfoFields) won't get anything on a uri supporting ACL API
that is. I'd say that using a getter function which could wrap this
nicely should be encouraged.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Berliner Straße 39 / D-71229 Leonberg //
+49.7152.209647
nils wombat dialup fht-esslingen de / nils redhat de / nils lisas de
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
Ever noticed that common sense isn't really all that common?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part