Re: Trying to reach consensus for the proposed modules

[RUAUDEL Frédéric <ruaudel embl fr>]

Nelson Benítez wrote:

> Alexander Larsson wrote:
>  
>
> 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
> application.
>
>
>  
It was exactly one of the main purpose of this project[1]. You want to 
integrate your project into Nautilus but you don't want to dive into 
Nautilus extensions API which it a bit complicated when you are not 
aware of the GObject system.
Here you can deliver a GConf schema description file and your software 
is integrated automagically. It could be then adopted by project like 
fileroller, nautilus-sendto, etc. so they can concentrate on their 
software functionalities.

[1] "Features" section : http://www.grumz.net/?q=taxonomy/term/4/9

begin:vcard
fn:Frederic RUAUDEL
n:RUAUDEL;Frederic
org:EMBL Grenoble Outstation;Computer & Network Team
email;internet:ruaudel embl fr
title:System Administrator
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard