From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2000-06-30 14:41:54
|
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > 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). > > Surely that's not a problem since re-invoking the filer now causes the old > instance to open a new window rather than load another instance? Yep, although that needs to be made more efficient. Now that the 'rox' script is distributed with the filer I may just make it load the filer directly (as someone suggested as while back). We might also use a named pipe for communication rather than opening an X connection and communicating via the server... Although the idea of putting common functionality into a library solves (partly) the code size problem, it doesn't help to keep the two programs in sync. Eg, if I drag a file into a directory on the pinboard I'd want the filer to update itself straight away. We can't catch all cases of file systems changing, but this one is pretty common! My plan is to store the pinboard config somewhere in Choices. Possibly there will be a system for allowing various named configurations, eg `ROX-Filer/AppRun --pinboard MyPinboard'. Whatever happens, it's likely that the iconbar will use the same system. I was a bit worried that users used to GNOME / Windows might copy something to the pinboard and then delete the original, but I think I've found a neat solution: warn the user before deleting if the file is on the pinboard... Thomas Leonard -- ta...@ec... 3rd year computer science The ROX desktop (free/GPL) : http://rox.sourceforge.net |