Common VFS: GKIO experiment

nf nf2 at
Wed Dec 8 03:57:02 EET 2004

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 01:42, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 01:12 +0100, nf wrote:
> > Hi lists! (xdg, gnome-vfs, kde-core)
> > In order to find a way out of this situation, i would like to start an
> > experiment: To write a (KDE/C++) wrapper to Gnome-VFS which looks and
> > acts like the KIO-API - "GKIO". Then write a number of test-cases, which
> > test the GKIO-API for KIO requirements and compatibility. Once this
> > tests work, i want to try plugging GKIO into kde-core libs (instead of
> > original KIO code).
> As an experiment that sounds fine.  For a long-term solution, I don't
> think that's workable.  It'd probably be better (long-term) to develop
> an independent, clean, highly tested (i.e. not buggy as all hell like
> gnome-vfs) framework that can be reused by GNOME, KDE, and other desktop
> environments.

I think it's the talking about beautiful long term solutions which
creates this deadlock situation. The fact is that nobody wants to write
a third VFS at the moment (or do you know of someone?). As a "user" i
want a working desktop tomorrow - and not in 10 years time. (Re)use and
improve the code that exists - dreaming won't help.

What's so wrong and buggy about Gnome-VFS in detail(!!!) that can not or
will not get fixed? Which functionality does KIO offer via it's API that
Gnome-VFS doesn't have? Where are the technical obstacles which would
prevent GKIO from working? That's what i am interested in.




More information about the xdg mailing list