Fwd: Re: A common VFS and a Common conf-system [Part II]
robert at wittams.com
Wed Mar 9 21:51:36 EET 2005
Look, it will be perfectly possible for you to write a backend for D-VFS
that uses fuse for sshfs, dav, or any other protocol. You can do the
same for windows shell extensions, and OS X's in kernel fses.
That is a lot of work. And you already know it is going to suck.
Traditional posix apis make a lot of ancient assumptions that make very
little sense. Have you railed against the Posix AIO apis in the same way?
The fact that you can waste a lot of time bridging D-VFS to provably
suboptimal backends does not mean we need to posixly cripple the api.
Wrt to the namespace issue:
The fact is that people *already use URis*. KDE does. Gnome does. Open
Office does. Mozilla does.
If you could go back in time and redesign uris, it would have been nice
to make them compatible with unix filenames : as you say,
This didn't happen. URIs have won. It is *far* more realistic to adapt
unix utilities to accept both uris and unix filenames than to remove
uris from the face of the earth.
More information about the xdg