home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: "Kevin O'Donovan" <abaddon@nasoftwr.demon.co.uk>
- Subject: Re: Make It Simple
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:32:28 +0100 (BST)
- In-Reply-To: <memo.809267@cix.compulink.co.uk> from "Ofir Gal" at Jul 29, 94 10:04:00 am
- Precedence: bulk
-
- Ofir Gal said:
- > I don't think we need application specific stuff.
- My main concern would be that it could start taking a long time to parse.
- Under X, which seems to be were most people are getting there ideas from,
- the file is not read every time an application loads, instead it is read
- once (or upon request) into an X resource database. I'm not sure how
- applications interact with the database, but however they do it it has to
- be faster than reading and parsing a file every time you run. If I fire up
- an editor to make a quick change I want it available right away.
-
- > I think most users would prefer click-to-type, if you have to move the
- > mouse you may as well click it.
- I think it would be about equal. In my experience preferences are split
- without half the people not having a clue whats going on, and the remaining
- half equally split to what they prefer. Until you've worked in a point to
- type environment you can't really understand its benefits.
-
-
- > I don't think this should be in the
- > standard or in the app-defs file because very few programs will support
- > it.
- I'd agree, but for a different reason. If its available it should be a global
- option, otherwise its going to be very confusing. The only way to make it
- a global option is to change the AES. This is why I don't plan to support it.
- As far as my library's concerned whatever happens outside its window work area
- is the domain of the window service provider.
-
- > KEYS
- > *.*.*.*.*.*.
- > etc...
- >
- Not sure I like this, but that's quite possibly because I'm biased towards
- the .Xdefaults style. Given I can't come up with a concrete objection I guess
- you should just ignore me ;-)
-
- > Couldn't we just use pseudo code so that everyone understands it. I don't
- > know C well enough to follow your code.
- >
- If its provided in object code, and assuming that the interfaces match OK,
- you wouldn't have to read his code, you'd just call it. C or assembler
- would be the ideal languages to write such multi-language code in.
-
- > I hope you are wrong. I don't think any app should write to the file, only
- > read.
- >
- Agreed. Whatever we eventually decide the domain of the defaults file to be,
- it should not be application writeable.
-
- > Why not save them the same way they are displayed in the menu? ^Q, etc.
- >
- No real reason, as long as we choose something consistent. It could be worth
- stealing a few ideas from .Xdefaults, as it does allow the user to specify
- all sorts of events as well as key ones.
-
- Kev
- --
- Kevin O'Donovan
- abaddon@nasoftwr.demon.co.uk
- kebab@cix.compulink.co.uk
-
- Chaotic Amorals have more fun
-
-