KIO->GnomeVFS bridge started (looking for a Common-VFS)

[George Staikos]

On Monday 20 December 2004 11:14, nf wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 13:37, Jason Keirstead wrote:
> > I would think that it should try to find a KIO slave first, and fall back
> > on GVFS if absent. In a similar vein, if such a bridge were also written
> > to use KIO slaves in Gnome, I would expect they would prefer the GVFS
> > slaves and fall back on ours.
>
> The GVFS slaves should have priority. Because then KDE & Gnome apps can
> use the same VFS library.

   Did you have any dream of ever having this in KDE?

> > Why would anyone would want a KDE application to prefer a GVFS slave over
> > a KIO one? No matter how good the bridge it would still not be as
> > efficient as a native KIO one.
>
> I have written a little document to explain the benefits of a Common-VFS
> library.
>
> http://www.scheinwelt.at/~norbertf/common-vfs/COMMON-VFS-BENEFITS.html

   How about the disadvantages?  You could start with: One VFS is presently 
superior in features, protocols support, and compatibility, and the other 
desktop is going to have to lose functionality and performance, and gain 
bloat in order to satisfy these other benefits.  (note that I did not say 
which desktop, whichever one it is, it's irrelevant)  You could continue 
with: hundreds or thousands of bug fixes will be thrown out, and many new 
possible bug paths introduced.  There are many more.  Anyway, it's a cool 
experiment and I do wish you good luck with it, but I don't think adoption of 
this is realistic (personally).

-- 
George Staikos
KDE Developer				http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc.		http://www.staikos.net/