#934 Opening a shortcut with an application over the context menu does not correctly open it

[Sworddragon]

I'm using PCManFM 1.2.3 and if a shortcut (for example by adding a start menu entry to the desktop with LXPanel) is opened with an application over the context menu it seems that then only the application gets started without passing the file name to this application.

[Lonely Stranger]

Could you explain it a bit more? Where that shortcut points? How exactly do you trying to open it? Thank you very much.

[Sworddragon]

Where the shortcut points to isn't important as I'm trying to open the raw shortcut and not its target. For example just add any shortcut listed somewhere in LXPanel to the desktop and make a right click on it. Now select an application like a text editor to open the shortcut or if there is no existing association choose "Open With..." and select the application of your choice.

[Lonely Stranger]

Well, shortcuts from the system menu are applications. So what is the application you want to open an application with? I'm afraid there is none of such kind (open application with another application). Although I'm agree, that is a confusing situation and probably 'Open with' option should be omitted for such shortcuts instead.

[Sworddragon]

Maybe there is just a communication issue. Technically shortcuts are textfiles which are just more or less virtually handled by some applications as symlinks. If I'm making a double click on a shortcut I would expect it to open the linked target. If I'm choosing an application over the context menu I would expect it to open the shortcut itself.

[Lonely Stranger]

I see, thank you for clarification. Sounds reasonable for those who want to fix broken shortcuts by hands. Although it will broke the possibility to open targets via "Open With..." menu - for example if you have shortcut to some http://site/page.html and would like to open it with few different browsers - if "Open With..." will open the shortcut file itself then browsers will not open that URL anymore. So this would require another approach I believe. May be add "open shortcut with" menu item is not bad but I'm afraid it would confuse some people.

[Sworddragon]

The question is how transparent shall shortcuts be? If they map every action to the target what would be the difference to native symlinks?

[Lonely Stranger]

Differences are big enough:
1) shortcuts can have own icons, symlinks are just files and default icons for their file type would be assigned by file manager;
2) shortcuts can have custom displayable name (no limitations), symlinks can only have file name with limitations of file system, possibly with fixed suffix to distinguish from other types;
3) shortcuts can point on any valid file target (real or virtual, local or remote), symlinks can point only on real targets within local file hierarchy.
But usage of them is pretty much similar, yes.