Re: VFS for legacy apps (was: gvfs status report)
- From: Hans Petter Jansson <hpj novell com>
- To: Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>
- Cc: "gnome-vfs-list gnome org" <gnome-vfs-list gnome org>, "gtk-devel-list gnome org" <gtk-devel-list gnome org>, Damon Chaplin <damon karuna eclipse co uk>
- Subject: Re: VFS for legacy apps (was: gvfs status report)
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:22:08 -0600
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 13:51 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 12:38 +0000, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> > You're probably always going to need type, server and share though, so
> > maybe you can make it a bit more readable:
> >
> > ~/.mounts/smb:$server:$share/dir/file.txt
> >
> > Extra options can go on the end.
> >
> > Also I'd probably avoid ';' just in case bash goes anywhere near it.
> Sure, those are requred. But say we have two optional things, like user
> and domain, as in smb:server:share:user:domain. But what do we then do
> if user is unset, but domain isn't. I guess one could do
> smb:server:share::domain. Still, it requires very specific handling of
> each type of share with a specified option order etc. A key=value
> approach is more generic.
I suppose
~/.vfs/smb:$server:$share/dir/file.txt:option=$value:option=$value
is a workable compromise. It might even be what Damon was indicating.
Now that we're picking on details, I'd say that .vfs or .gvfs would be a
better base directory than .mounts too.
--
Hans Petter
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]