[Thunar-dev] Thunar Extension Framework

Tim Tassonis timtas at cubic.ch
Wed Sep 14 18:29:47 CEST 2005

Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> Tim Tassonis wrote:
>> I think the argument of supporting "additional information like 
>> metadata, mime/type etc" is fundamentally wrong, exactly because the 
>> Linux/UNIX/Posix VFS layer does not support it. So you have to implement 
>> the File/metadata mapping yourself anyway for 99% of all files you're 
>> ever going to manage.
> You missed the point: The POSIX API is very limited. That's a limitation
> we have to live with right now (the core of the API dates back to 1970,
> so no wonder it's not very up2date).
> But what we're talking about is not how to apply this limitation to
> newer systems; instead we're trying to find a solution for the future
> (without this and other limitations).

I don't think I missed the point, I just differ in the opinion as to at 
what level the limitation has to be solved. As long as the linux (or any 
other UNIX) VFS layer does not provide metadata information, you will 
always have to work around it and put a layer on top of it. This very 
same layer can just as well operate on remote systems, because most of 
the time those remote systems have an even lousier, more old-fashioned 
API than Posix.

So you do end up with less code for the same functionality, which I 
regard as "the right way"

> But to explain a bit: "Saving resources by dropping functionality" is
> just as stupid for design as "security by obscurity". IMHO, the best way
> to save resources is still to "do it right" at all stages of
> development, and that's what we'll do. As botsie pointed out there are
> fluxbox and other projects, which follow the former strategy, so you can
> decide for yourself what you prefer.

I don't see where I voted for less functionality and I am a happy xfce 
user since xfce3. I just don't see that a separate vfs layer for remote 
filesystems will get you any additional functionality apart from 
buzzword compliance. Remote/virtual filesystems _can_ be implemented at 
a lower level and the icon/mimetype stuff has to be done anyway for the 
local hard disk until the VFS layer exports metadata to userspace.

I just would like to save resources by dropping unused infrastructure.
But anyway, you do the work, so I won't get in the way anymore. If I'm 
not pleased with the result, I can always implement my own filemanager, 
for xfce of course, not for fluxbox or whatever.


>> Thanks a lot
>> Tim
> Benedikt
> _______________________________________________
> Thunar-dev mailing list
> Thunar-dev at xfce.org
> http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev

More information about the Thunar-dev mailing list