Re: Trying to reach consensus for the proposed modules
- From: RUAUDEL Frédéric <ruaudel embl fr>
- To: Nelson Benítez <gnel cenobioracing com>
- Cc: alexl redhat com, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Trying to reach consensus for the proposed modules
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:16:24 +0100
Nelson Benítez wrote:
It was exactly one of the main purpose of this project. 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
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
 "Features" section : http://www.grumz.net/?q=taxonomy/term/4/9
org:EMBL Grenoble Outstation;Computer & Network Team
email;internet:ruaudel embl fr
] [Thread Prev