diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'kio/DESIGN')
| -rw-r--r-- | kio/DESIGN | 272 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 272 deletions
diff --git a/kio/DESIGN b/kio/DESIGN deleted file mode 100644 index 08617bbda..000000000 --- a/kio/DESIGN +++ /dev/null @@ -1,272 +0,0 @@ -DESIGN: -======= - -libkio uses kioslaves (separate processes) that handle a given protocol. -Launching those slaves is taken care of by the tdeinit/klauncher tandem, -which are notified by DCOP. - -Connection is the most low-level class, the one that encapsulates the pipe. - -SlaveInterface is the main class for transferring anything to the slave -and Slave, which inherits SlaveInterface, is the sub class that Job should handle. - -A slave inherits SlaveBase, which is the other half of SlaveInterface. - -The scheduling is supposed to be on a two level basis. One is in the daemon -and one is in the application. The daemon one (as opposite to the holy one? :) -will determine how many slaves are ok for this app to be opened and it will -also assign tasks to actually existing slaves. -The application will still have some kind of a scheduler, but it should be -a lot simpler as it doesn't have to decide anything besides which -task goes to which pool of slaves (related to the protocol/host/user/port) -and move tasks around. -Currently a design study to name it cool is in scheduler.cpp but in the -application side. This is just to test other things like recursive jobs -and signals/slots within SlaveInterface. If someone feels brave, the scheduler -is yours! -On a second thought: at the daemon side there is no real scheduler, but a -pool of slaves. So what we need is some kind of load calculation of the -scheduler in the application and load balancing in the daemon. - -A third thought: Maybe the daemon can just take care of a number of 'unused' -slaves. When an application needs a slave, it can request it from the daemon. -The application will get one, either from the pool of unused slaves, -or a new one will be created. This keeps things simple at the daemon level. -It is up to the application to give the slaves back to the daemon. -The scheduler in the application must take care not to request too many -slaves and could implement priorities. - -Thought on usage: -* Typically a single slave-type is used exclusively in one application. E.g. -http slaves are used in a web-browser. POP3 slaves used in a mail program. - -* Sometimes a single program can have multiple roles. E.g. konqueror is -both a web-browser and a file-manager. As a web-browser it primarily uses -http-slaves as a file-manager file-slaves. - -* Selecting a link in konqueror: konqueror does a partial download of -the file to check the mimetype (right??) then the application is -started which downloads the complete file. In this case it should -be able to pass the slave which does the partial download from konqueror -to the application where it can do the complete download. - -Do we need to have a hard limit on the number of slaves/host? -It seems so, because some protocols are about to fail if you -have two slaves running in parralel (e.g. POP3) -This has to be implemented in the daemon because only at daemon -level all the slaves are known. As a consequence slaves must -be returned to the daemon before connecting to another host. -(Returning the slaves back to the daemon after every job is not -strictly needed and only causes extra overhead) - -Instead of actually returning the slave to the daemon, it could -be enough to ask 'recycling permission' from the daemon: the -application asks the daemon whether it is ok to use a slave for -another host. The daemon can then update its administration of -which slave is connected to which host. - -The above does of course not apply to hostless protocols (like file). -(They will never change host). - -Apart from a 'hard limit' on the number of slaves/host we can have -a 'soft limit'. E.g. upon connection to a HTTP 1.1 server, the web- -server tells the slave the number of parallel connections allowed. -THe simplest solution seems to be to treat 'soft limits' the same -as 'hard limits'. This means that the slave has to communicate the -'soft limit' to the daemon. - -Jobs using multiple slaves. - -If a job needs multiple slaves in parallel (e.g. copying a file from -a web-server to a ftp-server or browsing a tar-file on a ftp-site) -we must make sure to request the daemon for all slaves together since -otherwise there is a risk of deadlock. - -(If two applications both need a 'pop3' and a 'ftp' slave for a single -job and only a single slave/host is allowed for pop3 and ftp, we must -prevent giving the single pop3 slave to application #1 and the single -ftp slave to application #2. Both applications will then wait till the -end of times till they get the other slave so that they can start the -job. (This is a quite unlikely situation, but nevertheless possible)) - - -File Operations: -listRecursive is implemented as listDir and finding out if in the result - is a directory. If there is, another listDir job is issued. As listDir - is a readonly operation it fails when a directory isn't readable - .. but the main job goes on and discards the error, because -bIgnoreSubJobsError is true, which is what we want (David) - -del is implemented as listRecursive, removing all files and removing all - empty directories. This basically means if one directory isn't readable - we don't remove it as listRecursive didn't find it. But the del will later - on try to remove it's parent directory and fail. But there are cases when - it would be possible to delete the dir in chmod the dir before. On the - other hand del("/") shouldn't list the whole file system and remove all - user owned files just to find out it can't remove everything else (this - basically means we have to take care of things we can remove before we try) - - ... Well, rm -rf / refuses to do anything, so we should just do the same: - use a listRecursive with bIgnoreSubJobsError = false. If anything can't - be removed, we just abort. (David) - - ... My concern was more that the fact we can list / doesn't mean we can - remove it. So we shouldn't remove everything we could list without checking - we can. But then the question arises how do we check whether we can remove it? - (Stephan) - - ... I was wrong, rm -rf /, even as a user, lists everything and removes - everything it can (don't try this at home!). I don't think we can do - better, unless we add a protocol-dependent "canDelete(path)", which is - _really_ not easy to implement, whatever protocol. (David) - - -Lib docu -======== - -mkdir: ... - -rmdir: ... - -chmod: ... - -special: ... - -stat: ... - -get is implemented as TransferJob. Clients get 'data' signals with the data. -A data block of zero size indicates end of data (EOD) - -put is implemented as TransferJob. Clients have to connect to the -'dataReq' signal. The slave will call you when it needs your data. - -mimetype: ... - -file_copy: copies a single file, either using CMD_COPY if the slave - supports that or get & put otherwise. - -file_move: moves a single file, either using CMD_RENAME if the slave - supports that, CMD_COPY + del otherwise, or eventually - get & put & del. - -file_delete: delete a single file. - -copy: copies a file or directory, recursively if the latter - -move: moves a file or directory, recursively if the latter - -del: deletes a file or directory, recursively if the latter - -PROGRESS DISPLAYING : -===================== -Taj brought up the idea of deligating all progress informations to an extern -GUI daemon which could be provided in several implementations - examples -are popup dialogs (most are annoyed by them, like me :) or a kicker applet -or something completely different. This would also remove the dependency on -libtdeui (I hope). -Conclusion: kio_uiserver is this single GUI daemon, but the dependency on -libtdeui couldn't be removed (for many reasons, including Job::showErrorDialog()) - -A. progress handling ---------------------- -There will be two ways how the application can display progress : - -1. regular apps will use NetAccess for all kio operations and will not care - about progress handling : - - NetAccess creates Job - - NetAccess creates JobObserver that will connect to the Job's signals and - pass them via dcop to the running GUI Progress Server - -2. apps that want to do some handling with progress dialogs like Caitoo or - KMail : - - app creates Job - - app creates a progress dialog : this should be a ProgressBase descendant - e.g. StatusProgress or custom progress dialog - - app calls progress->setJob( job ) in order to connect job's signals with - progress dialog slots - -B. customized progress dialogs -------------------------------- - This will be similar to what we had before. - - - ProgressBase class that all other dialogs will inherit. - will contain an initialization method setJob( TDEIO::Job*) for apps of the - second class (see A.2 above), that will connect job's signals to dialog's - slots - - - DefaultProgress ( former KIOSimpleProgressDialog ) that will be used for - regular progress dialogs created by GUI Progress Server - - - StatusProgress ( former KIOLittleProgressDialog ) that can be used for - embedding in status bar - -C. GUI Progress Server ------------------------ - This is a special progress server. - - createProgress() will either create a DefaultProgress dialog or add new entry - in a ListProgress ( an all-jobs-in-one progress dialog ) - - after receiving signals from the JobObserver via DCOP it will call - appropriate method of progress dialog ( either in DefaultProgress or ListProgress ) - - ListProgres can be a Caitoo style dialog, kicker applet or both in one. - -D. Some notes --------------- - 1. most of the apps will not care at all about the progress display - 2. user will be able to choose whether he wants to see separate progress - dialogs or all-in-one ListProgress dialog - 3. developers can create their custom progress dialogs that inherit - ProgressBase and do any manipulation with a dialog if they use a second - approach ( see A.2 above ) - - -Streaming ---------- - - 1. We currently support a streaming "GET": e.g. file:/tmp/test.gz#gzip:/ - works. The following should also work: file:/tmp/test.gz.gz#gzip:/#gzip:/ - The current approach makes a TrasnferJob for gzip:/ and then adds a - subjob for "file:/tmp/test.gz.gz#gzip:/" which itself adds a subjob - for "file:/tmp/test.gz.gz". - 2. This doesn't extend very well to PUT, because there the order should - basically be the other way around, but the "input" to the job as a whole - should go to the "gzip:/" job, not to the "file:/tmp/test.gz.gz." - It would probably be easier to implement such a job in the way the - current "CopyJob" is done. Have a Job and make all sub-urls sub-jobs of - this Job. - 3. As a result of 1. COPY FROM an url like file:/tmp/test.gz#gzip:/ should - work. COPY TO does not, because that would require PUT. - - -Resuming --------- - -A rough note for now, just to have this somewhere : -(PJ=put-job, GJ=get-job) - -PJ can't resume: -PJ-->app: canResume(0) (emitted by dataReq) -GJ-->app: data() -PJ-->app: dataReq() -app->PJ: data() - -PJ can resume but GJ can't resume: -PJ-->app: canResume(xx) -app->GJ: start job with "resume=xxx" metadata. -GJ-->app: data() -PJ-->app: dataReq() -app->PJ: data() - -PJ can resume and GJ can resume: -PJ-->app: canResume(xx) -app->GJ: start job with "resume=xxx" metadata. -GJ-->app: canResume(xx) -GJ-->app: data() -PJ-->app: dataReq() -app->PJ: canResume(xx) -app->PJ: data() - -So when the slave supports resume for "put" it has to check after the first -dataRequest() whether it has got a canResume() back from the app. If it did -it must resume. Otherwise it must start from 0. - - |