Re: Regarding Nautilus scripts

["Eugenia Loli-Queru" <eloli hotmail com>]

Rob wrote:

> Shouldn't it be under an "Archive" submenu, if anything? Why should a
> user have to know the code is provided by a different application to
> core nautilus?

That's what I am saying. The user shouldn't know that! This is why this
functionality should be done by a small binary/library FOR Nautilus and NOT
by an external third party application. Third party applications they should
be allowed to install their addon FOR Nautilus as a .so lib file on a dir
like /opt/gnome/bin/nautilus-addons. E.g. File Roller should add there its
stuff. But if someone wants to write an addon for Nautilus that it is not
part of another big app, they should be allowed to do so. In fact, it is
much easier to do that than using a third party app as a client for nautilus
stuff.

> And if we only have 1 archive menu option (which I agree we should), a
> submenu makes no sense.

In this case, yes, 1-2 options should not have their own submenu. But as I
explained on weekend, there should not only be one option for general
extensibility. I already metnioned 10 good candidates for addons!
FileRoller's stuff is only 1-2 of the lot that needs to go there and extend
the functionality of Nautilus!

Rodrigo wrote:

>the location is totally transparent, since we know where they are via the
installed .server files related to each component (= addon).

You know where they are placed via these .server files. Does the user know?
How would he be able to place one manually if his ./configure screwed up, or
if he simply wants to uninstall one, or... How is the user going to deal
with this? The easiest way is to have a "Settings..."  popup window listing
all addons with checkbox next to them, and unchecking their checkbox it will
hide the equivelant addon. But if a manual way should be there, there should
be a specific addon dir where the user physically can move around .so addon
files. It is just so much cleaner to have everything in one place instead of
scattered all over the place and only determine their location when reading
that .server file...

Danny wrote:

>Well, I'd suggest using a "level of preference" setting alongside each
program's mime action addition, and setting the "level of preference"
>high for the small app ("mydos2unix"), and low for the big app ("screem",
...), so that the mime action on a file uses the small app
>for it if installed, else the big app ? ;)

You make the easy things unessesarily complex for no good reason. Do you
think third party application writers will get into the fuss to write for
you their apps in a special way in order to accomodate better this plan? It
will never fly. And if it won't get into the fuss, I surely no way I want to
load the whole gimp or the whole screem just to do a function that the
filemananger itself should handle via the addition of a SIMPLE addon that
probably won't take more than 1-2 days to write and test.

>Or am I missing the point?

Am *I* missing something? I am starting to wonder about my abilities to
communicate...  :-D

I will prepare a mockup today to show what I am talking about. If that won't
conveince you, nothing will.

off for breakfast,
Eugenia