[Geany-devel] Changed file saving implementation for systems with GIO

Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven at xxxxx
Thu Nov 4 16:26:05 UTC 2010

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:26:00 +0100
Colomban Wendling <lists.ban at herbesfolles.org> wrote:

> Le 02/11/2010 19:11, Nick Treleaven a écrit :
> > Hi list,
> > To workaround bug(s) in GVFS, I've now changed the file saving
> > implementation for systems with GIO in SVN trunk. See also:
> > 
> > http://lists.uvena.de/geany-devel/2010-November/003412.html
> > 
> > Please help test this. File permissions should be preserved after
> > saving, and disk space exhaustion should now be handled without losing
> > the previously saved file.
> Interesting change, let's see what happens now -- this said I don't use
> remote files often so I will probably not notice any change...

Actually I should have been clearer - this change affects local files
too. I'll list the fixes now:

permissions - was a bug only if using use_safe_file_saving pref, which
is usually off anyway.

disk exhaustion - was a bug for local files and probably remote files.

file corruption - were bug(s) in GVFS for remote files, at least one is
fixed in newest GVFS; our workaround will hopefully prevent corruption
even with a broken GVFS.

> Just to mention (I just saw that the question raised in the original
> thread, sorry not to have seen it before): you actually need to release
> GFiles with g_object_unref(). I'd thought it would be quite obvious --
> you create an object, you destroy it -- but seems not :)

It wasn't clear an object was being created when I checked the docs
originally. I just looked at the object hierarchy for GFile and it
descends from GInterface, not GObject. Is g_object_unref () callable on
a GInterface? I guess so but it would be nice to find some concrete
information about it ;-)

Also, the docs for g_file_new_for_path don't mention releasing
resources, but the docs for g_file_get_parent *do* say to call
g_object_unref. Both functions return a GFile. Is this a bug in the docs
for g_file_new_* ?

> So, here's a (very) small patch for this.

I haven't applied it just yet, I'll wait for your reply to the above
issue ;-)


More information about the Devel mailing list