Stephan Arts wrote: >>>>Will Thunar eventually support network access such as accessing your >>>>Samba shares? In Gnome, it's possible to connect to the network using >>>>e.g. smb://mycomputer or ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Currently, for these use >>>>cases I have to start Nautilus (and make sure I don't just start >>>>"nautilus", or my desktop will be overtaken by it!). >>> >>>It would be interesting to see this kind of functionality. It has been >>>discussed before, thunar won't support it by default (IIRC), but >>>eventually it will be possible to write plugins for these things. >> >>Well, I have a patch to add samba support based on libsmbclient, but it >>doesn't work properly right now (esp. auth handling with libsmbclient is >>a mess). I have received several feature requests for samba support, so >>I guess that's atleast important enough to think about this again. >> >>Maybe I'll commit that for RC1, but disabled by default. Dunno yet. > > Do you want to support it by extentions, or build-in? > > I'd prefer extentions, because that makes it possible for developers > to extend it beyond smb. Support for SSH, FTP or WebDAV can be written > too by someone if (s)he wants it. Like thunar-apr, thunar-uca or > thunar-sbr, these things could also be supported (and installed) if > someone wants it. And removed if (s)he doesn't.
It'll be builtin just like the trash support. Can however be disabled during compilation. A plugin framework for thunar-vfs is a 2.0 topic (if at all). Allowing external plugins will always decrease both the flexibility and the performance, and usually causes maintaince problems. Just see gnome-vfs and nautilus interaction for an example here (for example an sshfs will have totally different UI/actions requirements than the trashfs, so even tho it can be extended "dynamically", the UI will still have to be updated to make sense or i.e. you'll get a "Move to Trash" for sshfs, although the trash spec doesn't allow remote files and the like[1], and of course at a way higher cost). Some backends may be served by a plugin later, but for now I don't have time nor energy to maintain a stable plugin interface, but stability is what we want now for 4.4.0. The thunar-vfs API/ABI is stable and makes sense - well except for thunar_vfs_info_rename() - which is way more important, because the thunar-vfs internals can be changed very easily without even the need to recompile applications (because of said UI tweaks that doesn't however apply to Thunar, of course). > Stephan Benedikt [1] This is actually one of the major usability problems in GNOME: gnome-vfs can be extended in a way that the application's UI doesn't make sense anymore, which is then worked around, resulting in either even more UI breakage, or hacky code. _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
