Benedikt Meurer wrote: > The extension framework is not meant to solve these issues. For this > kind of "extensibility" we'd need to either (a) export a lot of > internals of the file manager or (b) extend the VFS layer. While my > original plan was to do (a), I've came to the conclusion, that this is > not a really good idea, and (b) would do better here (together with a > flexible metadata framework). But (b) requires a *LOT* of work.
Well, keep it a long term plan then. I don't think anybody is expecting everything including the kitchen sink in Thunar 1.0 :) IMO, an extensible VFS has some pluses and minuses: Plus side: * A lot of similar operations like ftp, sftp, smb can be supported as extensions. * A different kind of file management metaphor such as keyword based categorised searches (think gmail for local files) could be implemented. Minus side: * Perhaps an extensible VFS layer may add overhead. * Shoehorning odd things into a file manager metaphor (eg config settings) -- b _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
