2011/9/25 Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>: > On Sunday, 25 de September de 2011 01:48:33 Иван Комиссаров wrote: >> As long as QFileEngines are marked as deprecated, Qt will have no >> possibility to implement virtual filesystem. >> >> So i would like to discuss features of new VFS. >> >> I have 2 questions. First - should it work using QFile and QDir classes as >> front-end or it should provide its own API like QVFSFile? Second - if we >> provide new API, should it be synchronous (like QFile) or asynchronous >> (like Q*Socket)? > > I would prefer a new API, more suited for the task. Whether it is synchronous > or asynchronous, it's up to the implementation.
Personally, I think QIODevice-derived thing would be just enough, maybe with additional protocol-specific methods/properties for things like FTP mode changes, or such. > Experience in KDE shows asynchronous is better when a non-negligible delay is > expected. Agreed. Synchronous QFile-style approach just doesn't scale well to operations with remote sources (thus with much greater latencies and more faulty ones) and even with local sources that require a lot of work to be done (think of accessing a file inside a .xz archive). After all, it's much easier to make a sync API out of async one given all the waitFor*-functions than the reverse. -- Georg Rudoy LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
