On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 09:16 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 14:22 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
> > I suppose > > > > ~/.vfs/smb:$server:$share/dir/file.txt:option=$value:option=$value > You mean > ~/.vfs/smb:$server:$share:option=$value:option=$value/dir/file > I assume? No, I was assuming that the distinction between "share" and the first path element was arbitrary. Which it might not be, I guess. > > is a workable compromise. It might even be what Damon was indicating. > > Now that we're picking on details, I'd say that .vfs or .gvfs would be a > > better base directory than .mounts too. > This would work, and would look better. It still requires specific code > for each possible backend to map from path back to the mount info > though. (i.e. you need to know that for smb the first two items are > server and share.) Which protocols don't require a server address? Which don't require a path relative to the server? If none, will such realistically exist in the future? -- Hans Petter _______________________________________________ gnome-vfs-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
