From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2000-06-28 14:45:58
|
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 da...@da... wrote: > On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 04:32:56PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 13:58:04 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > 1. Do we want it RISC OS style (ie, just links) or everyone-else style > > > (ie, the background acts like another directory)? Since even the > > > iconbar is a directory, the second option seems logical... > > > > I prefer a directory with links. Well, removing an icon must not remove > > the file! > > I agree with Vincent, but then again I have always prefered the > pinboard's behaviour over the likes of GMC and KFM. Well, if no-one has any complaints... this makes things easier :-) Of course, it might make sense for the iconbar to be an extension of the pinboard rather than an extension of the filer... > If the pinboard isn't just a directory like everything else, then > perhaps some form of launcher program rather than adding the > functionality to the filer. I myself like this idea, since at the rate > things are going, ROX-filer could end up as a monolithic mess. It > already does normal filing and act as the icon bar, which I think > should be separate programs, perhaps with a libROX for the functions > both programs use. There are still arguments for putting it all in one program though. For example, dragging files on to a directory should do a copy; dragging to an app should run the application, etc. I think we're OK on the bloat front for a bit (gmc is 5x the size of ROX-Filer!). The other argument for keeping it all together is that clicking on a directory on the backdrop can simply open a new window, rather than having to run a new copy of the filer (in fact, this is why the iconbar was made part of the filer). Thomas Leonard -- ta...@ec... 3rd year computer science The ROX desktop (free/GPL) : http://rox.sourceforge.net |