Re: [Fwd: Q: control-center and CORBA]

[Dietmar Maurer <dm vlsivie tuwien ac at>]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> >>>>> "Dietmar" == Dietmar Maurer <dm@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
> Dietmar> I don't understand why we need a protocol at all. capplets
> Dietmar> are programswith one application window (no menu, no toolbar,
> Dietmar> no status bar) and 5 buttons (try, revert, ok, cancel,
> Dietmar> help). It's simply not necessary to to communicate with the
> Dietmar> control center?
>
> I see it as being driven by a GUI decision.  The control-center
> authors wanted this particular GUI, and using CORBA was a reasonable
> way to get there while keeping modularity.
>
> If you accept the GUI decision, then this is perfectly reasonable.
>
> Dietmar> Beside that I don't like the user interface of the
> Dietmar> control-center. I think we don't need it. Maybe it's better
> Dietmar> to use the file manager for this job - Install all capplets
> Dietmar> in a separate directory, then invoke the file manager on that
> Dietmar> subdir - maybe with a special mode (like in MS-Windows 3.1).
>
> I will note that it is probably possible in theory to write something
> like the control-center which works the way you'd like.  If it isn't
> possible, I'd suggest making the necessary changes so that it is
> possible.  (Disclaimer: I haven't looked at the control-center at all.
> I could be totally out to lunch.)
>
> Then the choice could be up to the user.  But I doubt anybody will be
> doing this unless you pick it up, hint, hint.
>
> (In a very cool world it would be possible to specify the file manager
> to use on a per-directory basis.  This could be done by using CORBA to
> look up the appropriate file manager object for a given directory, and
> then overriding the choice for magic directories like the control
> center.)
>

Yes, somethink like this would be much better - it's a more general
approach, which is also usable for other things (gmenu?, ...).