faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: kio-gio bridge
by Richard Moore on Wednesday 23/Jan/2008, @02:29
|
> Why is it overlapping? Parts of the functionality in KIO (particularly
> network transparent file-management like smb, ftp, sftp, webdav) would be
> delegated to GIO/GVFS. That's just putting the KIO interface on top of a
> shared implementation.
You seem to be saying instead of maintaining a single well tested code base, we'd now need to maintain two of them. One of which is unproven, and only covers part of the problem space. I don't see this as a winning argument. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: kio-gio bridge
by Norbert on Wednesday 23/Jan/2008, @04:37
|
>> That's just putting the KIO interface on top of a
>> shared implementation.
>
> You seem to be saying instead of maintaining a single well tested code base,
> we'd now need to maintain two of them. One of which is unproven, and only covers
> part of the problem space. I don't see this as a winning argument.
First, i would always rate usability higher than maintainability. But i'm pretty sure that moving towards a shared implementation, even if it's only for the VFS parts of KIO, will in the long run reduce maintenance "cost" as well.
However, as things are evolutionary, lets just try with an optional plugin and see if users like it. It's far too early to discuss maintenance cost or whether GVFS should really replace certain parts of KIO by default.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: kio-gio bridge
by SadEagle on Wednesday 23/Jan/2008, @07:57
|
Software development is 90% maintenance.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|