Re: Reducing the number of special uris in gnome
- From: Dave Bordoley <bordoley msu edu>
- To: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
- Cc: Nautilus List <nautilus-list gnome org>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Reducing the number of special uris in gnome
- Date: 27 Jun 2002 08:47:52 -0400
Well we should just not expose them in the ui. Whether they're there or
not isn't quite as big of a deal as long as they are not exposed in the
ui. My proposal is purely ui based.
On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 08:26, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 13:09, Dave Bordoley wrote:
> > Right now we have 6 special uris that i know of.
> > start-here:
> > preferences:
> > applications:
> > system-settings:
> > server-settings:
> > trash:
> > In general this is bad from a ui perspective, since they are not
> > connected in a meaningful way (no hierarchy like a file system just
> > random locations). I have a solution.
> > The first 5 in the list really all serve the same function. They are all
> > used to launch applications. Why not just remove all of them except for
> > applications://, the directory where apps are meant to be launched from
> > anyway, they all double the functionality of this directory anyway
> > (there is no app available from these directories that i cannot launch
> > from the applications directory that I know of. Why created confusion
> > lets just have one place to launch apps from in nautilus).
> > To facilitate a good ui I propose that we add applications to the the go
> > menu as well as the nautilus toolbar. This will make this directory
> > easily accessible for users. In addition by doing this we create a
> > hierarchal directory structure for launching apps. This is nice as
> > applications:// can be added to the tree view as a second root node.
> > If we do this we reduce the number of special gnome uris to two,
> > applications:// and trash://.
> > I expect that this will be much more usable from a users perspective.
> 1) Only 3 of them are actually user-visible.
> 2) Most of them stay here for compatibility reasons.
> >From what I can see, all the schemes based on the vfolder method we get
> "for free", and libdesktop isn't much overhead.
> If you want to do such a thing as reducing the number of special URIs,
> you will also have to write the migration tools ;)
> /Bastien Nocera
] [Thread Prev