> IOW, I think the specs Mikko referred to is quite good and should be
> used where possible. It is especially important to follow these to ease
> porting of Linux code and reduce number of bugs regarding upstream
> sources, because for example glib has functions to retrieve these XDG
> paths and those are used by a lot of open source software:
> g_get_user_cache_dir()
> g_get_user_data_dir()
> g_get_user_config_dir()
> g_get_user_runtime_dir()
> g_get_user_special_dir()
> g_get_system_data_dirs()
> g_get_system_config_dirs()
Above APIs seems great if it meets following requirements:
1. Dependency
If the application want to use above APIs, then it's fine. However, the library dependency matters for the library. As you stated, glib will be proper baseline for dependency tree. Maybe almost library does not have any issue with it.
2. Scalability
If we need to add other directory like media directory or app-root directory, app-data directory, we probably need to add more functions similar to above. To handle this situation, maybe we need to provide simple wrapper library and use above glib functions internally.
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
