system and desktop VFS merged

gtg990h at gtg990h at
Wed Mar 30 23:31:07 EEST 2005

I'm going to refrain from commenting on details here, I just want to pick a
methodological nit:

> It's over-complicated and isn't necessary.  D-VFS
> should not bend over backwards to work for apps that *should* just
> update to the newer API.

Are you suggesting that POSIX file I/O should be deprecated in favor of D-VFS?
That's a defensible position, but it's a fairly weightly decision that should be
considered by more than just xdg.

> But that should be orthogonal to D-VFS, so that when the important apps are
> all ported over, the hacks can disappear and nobody will know, and we
> won't be stuck supporting APIs and system we already know aren't good
> enough 10, 20 years down the road.

This "legacy app" term is really annoying. You can't proceed from the premise
that all existing UNIX apps are "legacy". Even if KDE and GNOME adopt D-VFS,
most UNIX apps still won't use it. They have simply nothing to gain from it
(POSIX serves their needs just fine), and a lot to lose (incompatibility with
existing standards). If you think hacks are necessary, that's fine. However, if
hacks are required before a line of code has been written, don't expect them to
ever go away.

    Rayiner Hashem

More information about the xdg mailing list