A common VFS and a Common conf-system [Part II]

[Sean Middleditch]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 02:42 +0100, nf2 wrote:
>Sean Middleditch wrote:
>Looks a lot like Gnome-VFS (except that you don't want to use threads). :-)

And that gnome-vfs is built around a completely different set of
operations, which is the real problem with it.  ;-)

>
>>Are there any protocol backends you know of that are very difficult to
>>implement without using threads?
>>  
>>
>Just looked at libsmbclient. I didn't see any io-multiplexing features 
>(But maybe i missed them).

Hmm... indeed, it does look like the libsmbclient API is crap.  Rather
depressing...

>
>The problem is, that there might be lots of third party libraries which 
>don't support async io.

It can be worked around on a case-by-case basis.

If SMB does need a separate thread for each connection, that can be
done, and it can be completely hidden as an implementation detail of the
backend.  It's frustrating that that might have to be the case, but it
doesn't really affect the API or other backends at all.

If many/most backends need such a thing, then I guess threaded will be a
necessary.  We're way far away from even being at the point where this
matters, though - I'm right now concerned about the *application* API,
not the internal implementation of the daemon or its backends.

>
>And it seems that both Gnome-VFS and KIO use synchronous-IO inside their 
>backends - with the only little difference that KIO converts it to 
>callbacks inside the backend code and Gnome-VFS outside (which is better 
>IMO).



>
>regards,
>Norbert
>
>_______________________________________________
>xdg mailing list
>xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>