Re: File manager tree.
- From: bob kehs ksd org
- To: Vlad Harchev <hvv hippo ru>
- cc: Miguel de Icaza <miguel nuclecu unam mx>, tigert gimp org, gnome-list gnome org, gnome-hackers nuclecu unam mx, mc nuclecu unam mx, msf redhat com, federico nuclecu unam mx, wroberts1 cx983858-b orng1 occa home com
- Subject: Re: File manager tree.
- Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 08:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
That sounds like a good idea to me. Verry powerfull. :)
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 1999, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> >
> > > A trashcan is nice to some people but an anoyance to others. Could you
> > > make an option to disable/remove the trashcan? I find it anoying to have
> > > to delete something more than once. :)
> >
> > The trashcan is going to be configurable.
> >
> > Miguel.
> >
>
> May be some configurable interface - ie ability to bind a script to the icon,
> so that script will recive
> the action as 1st parameter (it can be "copy", "move", "configure" )
> and a list of urls (this will allow droping urls from NS)
>
> IMO we have to remember the power that scripts give us. If such interface
> will be allowed, then we can easily add a lot of icons to destop:
>
> trashcan
> shreder (may be even using ext2's attributes)
> printer
> rpm installer (drag rpms and it will install them)
> compressor (may be using ext2's atributes)
> ftp site (for putting files in some directory)
> audio file player
> picture viewer
> etc..
>
> So IMO it's better to provide an ability to call user-written scripts
> (and implement those scripts for such generic things like trashcan) rather
> than going way of microsoft (providing no interfaces and weak support for
> generic things, written in C).
>
> If you like these ideas, I can try to design interface in detail.
>
> Best regards,
> -Vlad
>
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]