On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 15:11 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > 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.
At the first "/" in the path element we'll be into the mountpoint. We can't look for options on all files inside the mount. > > > 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? In gvfs currently there is smb-network (i.e. smb:///) In gnome-vfs there are things like computer:, network:, cdda:, burn:. Another example would be the remote version of file:/// (access files on the machine that runs the session bus as discussed earlier in this thread). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's an ungodly Republican vagrant living undercover at Ringling Bros. Circus. She's a blind tempestuous opera singer trying to make a difference in a man's world. They fight crime! _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list