Re: [sabayon] On the topic of lockdown

On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 09:18 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 16:46 +0200, Rob Bradford wrote:

> > So the way the applier would work under my proposal is:
> > 
> > (1) If the lockdown feature is covered by a meta key (e.g. terminal)
> > then the key would be set and made mandatory at the same time and in the
> > same operation
> > 
> > (2) If the lockdown feature is part of the new generation without
> > explicit lockdown keys this would just set the appropriate keys to
> > mandatory. An example of this would be the background settings. These
> > are governed by three keys. Turning on background lockdown makes these
> > three keys mandatory.
> > 
> > If this was implemented under the current user-interface paradigm this
> > would be like having no checkbox and just a padlock. Which I think would
> > be very confusing. So basically i'm suggesting that the checkbox implies
> > mandatoryness (not a real word) and also the setting of a key in the
> > meta case.
> > 
> > Clear as mud? :)
> Well. I still don't quite understand what you mean. Are you talking
> about the implementation, or the user interface?

Both obviously. In the GUI there would be no separate checkbox/padlock.
Just a check box. This has the effect of setting both the checkbox and
padlock in the current implementation for the explicit lockdown keys. 

But also allows us to go sensibly implement setting mandatory for other
keys. (If we used the existing interface paradigm this would be like
having a padlock but no checkbox.)

I feel like i'm wasting your time. Perhaps I should just go ahead and
implement it. I just don't want my work to be in vain :(


Rob Bradford <rob robster org uk>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]