My issues with the new FS-Plugin API

[ricobautsch]

The new interfaces in FileSystem plugin API are really usefull, but...

... 1.
wouldn't it be usefull, if the new FsLinksToLocalFiles and the FsContent* (content-field-definition) are per directory, not per plugin?

I mean, the FsLinksToLocalFiles should have a parameter "RemoteDir", so i can implement for each directory in the filesystem, if there are links to local files or not. The same for content-functions like FsContentGetSupportedField.

... 2.
Another issue is the following:

If i implement the FsLinksToLocalFiles and return True, implement the FsGetLocalName, return the local name and also true, i can get loading the local file to lister when pressing F3.

But if i return False in FsGetLocalName (telling that this specific file is not a link to a local file) and pressing F3, nothing happens.
I assumed, that in this case the default behavior would go on... download file from plugin to temp-directory and load to lister from this temp location. But instead, NOTHING happens.

Thanx in advance for any explanation.

[ghisler(Author)]

1. Where is the problem? Just return false to FsGetLocalName for files which are not local.

if i return False in FsGetLocalName (telling that this specific file is not a link to a local file) and pressing F3, nothing happens.
I assumed, that in this case the default behavior would go on

Yes, that's what should happen. I will check what the problem is.

[ricobautsch]

Whats the reason for existence of the function FsLinksToLocalFiles?
If i don't have local files, then i could always return False in FsGetLocalName, or simply don't implement this function.
So i assume, that it's for performance, telling if FsGetLocalName ever must be called. Am i right?
But yes, you are right, there is no problem at all with this.

The plugin-global definition of ContentFields (not directory-dependent) is indeed a problem for me, for the design of my plugin.
My plugin can host several scripts, each implementing an independent filesystem. Now all of them must live with one and only set of content-fields.
Ok, i accept this is a problem in design of my plugin. But wouln't it be a feature to all plugin-authors, if they could define different custom columns dependent from the directory?

PS. I didn't expect an answer from you on sunday. My respect to you for your engagement and such a great product.

[ghisler(Author)]

My problem is the switching between all these views. It's already working quite badly with only one set of custom fields, and would be even worse with multiple.

[ricobautsch]

Ok.
Thanx for answer my questions.