Re: Trying to reach consensus for the proposed modules

Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 13:10 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>>On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 23:00 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
>>> + nautilus-actions: there were some questions wrt to how it's
>>>integrated in nautilus. Some people wanted it to be integrated in some
>>>other way. No consensus, but maybe the issues have been resolved. Anyone
>>>able to comment?
>>AFAIR, some people said it would be nice to integrate the code into
>>Nautilus, which might happen for 2.16, but no time for 2.14. As for UI
>>integration, it's perfectly integrated into nautilus.
> Do people really think this is important to integrate with nautilus? I
> mean, is this really something we should expose to everyone? The UI for
> it is a pretty complicate power-user thing where you have to input path
> names to binaries, argument lists and glob expressions.

If we divide nautilus-action between backend (gconf entries that defines
menu items in nautilus) and frontend (nautilus-actions ui for edit those
gconf entries) I think the proper solution would be to integrate the
backend part into nautilus and so nautilus-actions would be just an
advanced editor while nautilus could ship a basic editor or not editor
at all as the more important thing is that nautilus provide an easy way
(gconf entries) to let applications integrate their launchers.

> While its a useful thing for some people I'm not at all sure its
> something we should expose in a highly visible way.

Summarizing, I think nautilus should have the backend and then there
would exist advanced or simple editors similar to the advanced and
simple editors that already exists for freedesktop menus spec.

The main thing to solve here is imho to avoid that a software vendor has
to write a nautilus extension just to install a simple launcher for his

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]