A common VFS and a Common conf-system (Was: namespacing)

[Jamie McCracken]

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 12:42 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 17:59 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>>
>>>So what to use then? "fdo"? "f"? 
> 
> 
>>Something should probably be chosen on a per-library basis.  For a
>>Common VFS, for example, I'd personally just use vfs_ (and VFS_ for
>>constants).  The actual style might be useful to define, such that the
>>complete stack of APIs officially "sanctioned" by FDo have a similar
>>style, but I don't think it's really *that* important.
> 
> 
> And now you mention it. Is there efforts going on to actually have such
> a common filesystem abstraction layer and a common configuration system?
> 
> I've read the thread about gkio but am not (yet) convinced this is how
> we should solve the problem.
> 
> For the vfs I'd say we extract shared/shareable technologies and best
> practises from both kio and gnome-vfs and put those in a new library
> thats also usable on it's own. Then we adjust both libraries to use the
> shared functionality from that library.


If you want something thats fast, easy to use and KISS that could take 
advantage of this then look at FUSE (http://fuse.sourceforge.net/) - it 
rocks!.

jamie.