On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > > We still need to support URIs too at least in some places, because of > > > > '%u' in .desktop files. If GNOME apps switched to using '%f', then > > > > konqueror (and old versions of GNOME) wouldn't be able to pass remote > > > > files to them any more. Likewise, if nautilus/libgnomedesktop didn't > > > > support using URIs for remote files any more, then they wouldn't be able > > > > to pass remote files to KDE apps. > > > > > > I think URI should still be used to refer to resources "from outside" > > > and to contact the appropriate backends. But internally GFile or > > > GFilePath objects should be used. That is, the user types in an URI, the > > > library resolves the URI to a GFile and passes a serialized form of the > > > GFile to the daemon. > > > > I remember asking in 2000 why gnome-vfs did not use GnomeVFSUri in the > > API rather than raw uris but I cannot remember what the answer was. Does > > anyone know the rationale behind not using a more abstract structure for > > uris in gnome-vfs ? > > It does. In some places, but not in others. In both ways in some places > even! Its just a nightmare...
Yes, it is a nightmare. The reason why I ask is that I remember someone explaining the rationale behind using uris always and I seem to remember that at that time, most of the API had only uris rather than GnomeVFSUri. I am growing old :/ Unfortunately, I have lost all of my email archives from before jan 2001. Mathieu -- _______________________________________________ gnome-vfs-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
