Am Donnerstag, den 15.09.2005, 18:17 +0200 schrieb Christian Neumair: > We may want to add "uri", "icon" and "activation-uri" properties, so that > clients can connect "notify::icon" and such.
To allow simple global volume monitoring, and be consistent with the current semantics, we can also connect to "notify" events from volumes inside the volume monitor and emit a "volume-changed" event. However, I'm concerned that we can't simply add this new field to GnomeVFSVolumeMonitorClass, since this would be an ABI breakage. Are we willing to accept this breakage, taken that subclassing the monitor would be dumb? I really wonder why we expose the GnomeVFSVolumeMonitor structs at all. Making them opaque for the outside world would be better IMHO. > I've filed a bug report [1] and did some hacking. I think the API is > straightforward and the implementation very simple. > > [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316403 -- Christian Neumair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gnome-vfs-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
