Re: Gnome Feature Request

["jose aliste gmail com" <jose aliste gmail com>]

Hi,

Please see comments inline.

2011/5/8 Erick Pérez <erick red gmail com>:
> On 08/05/2011, Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre mecheye net> wrote:
>> 2011/5/8 Erick Pérez <erick red gmail com>
>>
>>> > Why not at the time of the menu?
>>> Cause it will be to slow, way to slow. Making choices based on the
>>> data you think we should send to the service will be slow, any
>>> decision at all will take to long for a responsive UX to act.
>>>
>>
>> What makes you think that? Profile it and then make decisions. Don't degrade
>> the experience a user has because it could possibly be "too slow".
> Fair, enough, anyway what's make think like my programming experience.
>
>>
>>> > I'd rather see "No definitions" inline in the menu than having a new
>>> popup window tell me the new thing.
>>> No one is talking about new popup windows. That's a pretty rushed
>>> thought for something is still an idea, and, it's up to the app
>>> developer how they will handle the data and the interaction with the
>>> service, so It's kinda naive to assume you will have popup windows
>>> informing you of the results of anything.
>>>
>>
>> If the app developer already has to implement a UI for a dictionary result,
>> then why don't they just call gnome-dictionary directly?
>
> No one says that. You just assumed it that way.
>
>>  > You said that you didn't want a daemon started, so we can't use D-Bus in
>>> that case, unless we use D-Bus autostart, but I don't see the value in
>>> that
>>> either.
>>> You miss-understood me, when I said I didn't want a daemon, I was
>>> talking about a daemon of each application registered. In the first
>>> email I said that D-Bus should provide the infrastructure for the
>>> service/module
>>>
>>
>> A D-Bus daemon needs to be running for you to be able to call it. D-Bus can
>> start the daemon for you if it isn't started or it crashes, but the daemon
>> needs to keep running.
>
> You keep miss-understanding, when I talk about daemon, I meant, I
> didn't want a dictionary daemon, and a daemon for every app publishing
> actions/services, course it has to be a daemon for the apps to query
> it, and to answer back
>
>> Now the hard part:
>>> > The only tangible idea I can extract out of this is querying a service
>>> with something akin to a mimetype, and getting a list of programs that can
>>> handle it. I query the service with SEMANTIC_WORD, and I get
>>> "/usr/bin/gnome-dictionary-lookup-word %s" back.
>>> That's more or less the whole point of it. With SEMANTIC_WORD would
>>> return gnome-dictionary, and some others too, and even more than not
>>> regular gnome-dictionary, but gnome-dictionary called in a way that
>>> the app show just a small overlay with the definition, and nothing
>>> else
>>>
>>
>> If they have to implement a UI for every result that could be possibly
>> returned, they can only implement a certain number of actions... so the
>> middleman aggregator that you're suggesting is useless. Every time you add a
>> UI, you add support for the tool.
> I don't see how this is an answer to what I said before
>
>>
>>> > ... and I still can't see how you would build jumplists out of this
>>> Ohh, that so easy, the jump list are composed of two main things,
>>> recent files opened with that app, and sub-actions other than the main
>>> purpose of the app. Well the for recent files part there's already
>>> zeitgeist for that, but for a list of sub-actions of every app that
>>> allow it, then you can query the service I'm proposing. Because you
>>> should already know by now that querying the service about a specific
>>> action is not the only way of interacting with it.
>>>
>>
>> We already have a way to find the programs that have the ability to open a
>> file. It's been around for a long time now, too, and even works with KDE:
>>
>>   http://portland.freedesktop.org/xdg-utils-1.0/xdg-mime.html
>>
>> This is what nautilus talks to with its "Open With" dialog, for instance.
> Yeah, already know that, but xdg-open still handles just files based
> on a mime-type. I'm thinking more generally.
>
>>> There might be an inch of value in that idea, but I don't see it.
>>> > I don't see the value in this service
>>> Hopefully, you're not the main man behind Gnome.
>>
>> I'm not. I don't even know who the main man is, or even if there is one.
>>
>>> Gnome Desktop
>>> actually needs integration/communication between applications, to
>>> start looking as whole, like is already doing with the system settings
>>> trying to provide a niche for a bunch of somewhat different settings,
>>> and the way to provide that is centralizing communications and
>>> interactions, acting as a middle man between desktop apps.
>>>
>>
>> Of course gnome desktop would be better if it had integration. It would be
>> excellent if everything "just worked", but like any other timely, shipped
>> system, there are warts. GNOME 3.0 certainly isn't as "integrated" as we
>> would have liked it to be, but we have a schedule, we have time constraints,
>> and we have manpower constraints. If we had infinite time to design and work
>> on GNOME, we'd all be staring at the perfect desktop environment: It would
>> literally be the most usable, most customizable, least crashy desktop
>> environment that ever existed. Everything would be *perfectly* integrated
>>
>>
>>> >But if you want to go ahead and build whatever your idea appears to be,
>>> nobody's going to stop you.
>>> And this is just rude and useless.
>>>
>> I hope you see that I'm not trying to be rude.
> I didn't said you tried, I said you were rude. There's a different there.
>
>> I'm not taking time out of my
>> day to decypher what you mean by your emails, and cook up some mockups and
>> code for you to yay or nay.
> I never ask u or no one here to code/design anything for me, actually
> if u keep reading the list someone ask me already about my disposition
> to code/design and I said 'totally yes'.
> I'm programmer and I know perfectly how to build things, I'm proposing
> this here to find out what gnome people think about this, and if there
> would be anyone wanting to, do it together.
>
>> If you want to make the desktop better, you have to take the initiative and
>> lead the project. Provide mockups. Provide code. Again, there's a big
>> difference between "we need integration between apps" and "here's some
>> integration between apps"... guess which one is more appealing for people to
>> take shock at.
> Yeah, after the Unity incident when two groups of people working on
> improve Gnome couldn't get agree, I do think we first start
> negotiating and then coding. No ones want a second Unity jerking
> around, or at least I don't.
>
>> And if you want to lead the project, let it be known that it takes an
>> extraordinary amount of work: a proper leader should do the amount of work
>> of each person on the team, and then some managing the team to make sure
>> each part does their part.
> Again, even if u think I'm not, I do know what takes to manage a team.
> One thing it is necessary is the ability to hear/share/discuss someone
> thoughts without attacking it or mocking of his ideas, moreover if u
> can't solve the problem either.
>
> Finally, I do think this childish behavior is not getting anything
> useful for no-one of us. If the spirit of the Gnome Team, is: 'Bring
> some code/mockups, then we will judge' Ok.
> I'll do it myself. And then maybe, you find it interesting, or not.
>
Erick, AFAIK nobody is working on this kind of feature. Of course a
better integration between apps would be great. The main point is that
you have to invest some time designing/implementing and maybe have a
first example working so people can have a better idea of what you
have in mind. Also, the patches welcome/do it yourself culture is not
meant to be rude. It's just that people use their own free time to
code, and in almost every project is like that.  So people is just
saying that the Gnome proposals is not a wishlist. So the main point
is that you should just take the initiative and start
coding/designing. Of course you can share/ask questions (I really
believe that the dictionary integration should be done on a lower
level, like also the GtkSpell), engage with people working on
different stuff and probably/hopefully they will get along once they
know that you are committed. For this, it's way better to hang out in
irc.gimp.net (look for #gnome-hackers #gtk+ channels, for instance,
you can usually find me on channel #evince). Also, there was some
interest in defining a gtk wide spell infrastructure, which enters
into this kind of infrastructure, so it would be nice to know the
status of that.
I would start by defining the DBUS interfaces and how apps should
interact with them, etc.

Greets

José



> Erick
>
> Thxs anyway
>
> --
> El derecho de expresar nuestros pensamientos tiene algún significado
> tan sólo si somos capaces de tener pensamientos propios.
> El miedo a la libertad, Erich Fromm
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list