Commit notifications for specs
kevin.krammer at gmx.at
Thu May 1 06:21:46 PDT 2008
On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 19:06 +0200, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> > > by the way: GIO implements various fd.o specifications - the
> > > thumbnailing specification, the trash spec, the shared mime info spec,
> > > etc. exactly like KIO does.
> > KIO and GIO could have shared plugins ("slaves", in KIO slang) but
> > they do not. That would have been very useful.
> how would have this been even possible? GIO backends are implemented as
> GObject using the GModule API, and they are even out of tree from the
> GIO main library (see the gvfs module inside GNOME's SVN).
> it would be possible to write a GIO backend using KIO modules, and GIO
> wouldn't even notice that. the obvious requirement, though, would be
> that the backend used GObject to be implemented.
> good luck.
I have to admit that I only had a quick look at the GIO architecture, but as
far as I understand its remote protocol handlers are, like KIO's IO slaves,
implemented as out-of-process helpers, thus communicating with the
application through a protocol.
Why do you thing a handler for that protocol would have to be implemented
using a specific technology like GObject?
Usually any advanced enough software stack is capable of doing that, but as I
said I don't know the details of GIO, however since on the KIO side no such
restriction exists, I would be quite puzzled if the GIO protocol would.
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20080501/c808a6bd/attachment.pgp
More information about the xdg