Listing and unmounting GVFS mounts in KDE

[nf2]

Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Le Saturday 09 February 2008, nf2 a écrit :
>   
>> Trying to move on with my experimental kio-giobridge i'm facing a little
>> problem:
>>
>> 1) Where to list network mounts
>> 2) Present them in a way that users can "unmount" them via the context
>> menu.
>>
>> They could be listed in remote:// (that's what i'm doing at the moment,
>> but just as links) or in KFilePlacesModel.
>>
>> Listing them in remote:// would probably mean creating special desktop
>> entry files on the fly, which somehow get recognized as virtual mount
>> points and decorated with an "unmount" entry in the context menu (AFAIK
>> for native mounts such special desktop entries exists).
>>     
>
> That's IMO the preferred way since it fits with the way we deal with network 
> folders in KDE today. 
>   

KDE didn't have the notion of such network "mounts" in the past - 
therefore i think it's hard to tell where they belong. One could also 
argue that they are just another type of storage. Then it would make 
perfectly sense to list them along with cdroms and usbsticks in the 
places panel. I think that's more a matter of taste. To me, popping them 
up on the desktop or in the places panel when they are mounted seems 
pretty cool from look&feel.

The question whether they fit into the scope of Solid seems a bit 
ambiguous too.*) Solid also handles Volumes. Are they Hardware? Not so 
sure. Technically network mounts seem to fit quite well into Solid. I 
have implemented them with the StorageAccess and StorageVolume 
interfaces - If there were some kind of NetworkStorage or NetworkVolume 
interface, things would be perfect.

*) As i have spent all night hacking those mounts into Solid, i might be 
a bit preoccupied today. ;-)

The problem seems to be that KDE lacks a generic interface/model to list 
and manage file-system mounts, which partially wraps Solid, but also 
does other stuff like network/FUSE mounts. That's the one which should 
drive KFilePlacesModel. But perhaps it would be easier to extend the 
scope of Solid, but it seems you don't like that idea...

Cheers,
Norbert