From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2001-04-22 12:26:24
|
In an attempt to get wider support for application directories, I've written a Freshmeat article about them. You can read it here: http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/247/ From the comments so far, people seem to think it's a bit too Windows-like!! -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |
From: Laurent M. <mou...@on...> - 2001-04-23 09:33:43
|
Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> skribis: > http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/247/ > > From the comments so far, people seem to think it's a bit too > Windows-like!! I just had a quick look at these comments, and all this misunderstanding gave me an idea I expose at the end of this post. But first, here is a few reactions: (sorry, this is a bit long, but I'm not a native english speaker and I sometime get wordy to be sure I'm understood): - NextStep is a mythical "good thing" for many unixers, and NextStep also used standard application directories (was it the first one?). Talking more about this filiation (along with RiscOS of course :) could be attractive. - Maybe you should emphase that the application directories concept is meant for _gui_ applications. The unix structure is great for the command line (because it's fast and standard) and we don't want to get rid of it (yet :). - You could also emphase that your proposition is not just "everything in one directory", it's a complete standard for a self-contained file hierarchy. IMHO this is really close to the unix philosophy, translated to a new problem (i.e. GUI apps). Also, anything that we could do with the old unix structure (e.g. to scan all manpages looking for some keywords I just need to scan in two or three standard man dir) is just as easy to do with application directories (scan everything in /usr/local/apps/*/Help/*), _because this is also a standard_. This lead me to a proposition: Why not publishing a "ROX Standard" document? It would describe the application directories structure, the Choices system, the drag-and-drop saving concept, and other GUI guidelines. I know that all of this is a work in progress, and that part of this is already written, but I think that having up-to-date written standards may help ROX to grow. (btw, I'd love to help with such documents, I even love to _read_ them :). I would even propose to have this "ROX standard" play the role of other desktops standard libraries: for an application to be ROX-integrated it would just need to follow the standard. Of course we'd still have standard libraries that would help writting rox software, but they would'nt be mandatory. For example, I... HATE gtk coding, and C is not my language of choice... OK, this is an interested proposition! :/ Finally, I'd like to give a big thanks to Thomas and the whole "ROX team"... I'm a long-time linuxer, and has been cruising between desktops for almost as long (TkDesk... GNUSTep... KDE... Gnome... KDE 2... Flek...), and I have finally the feeling that I found the *right* one. Finnally a desktop project that has great GUI concepts (like GNUStep), is actively developped (like KDE), is lightweight (like Flek), and respect the unix philosophy (like Gnome)! I would^H^H^H^Hwill participate (I'm a developer), but I'm currently in the last year of a PhD (in case you wonder: incomputer GUI for aeronautics; yep, this explain a lot of things :), so don't hold your breath. In fact, I've already started to write a small window manager, and I promise it will support all the ROX standards (alongside the free desktops wm standard) when it will be ready. Hope this helps, -- Laurent MOUSSAULT |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2001-04-23 16:49:25
|
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:35:34AM +0200, Laurent MOUSSAULT wrote: > Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> skribis: > > > http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/247/ > > > > From the comments so far, people seem to think it's a bit too > > Windows-like!! > > I just had a quick look at these comments, and all this misunderstanding > gave me an idea I expose at the end of this post. But first, here is a > few reactions: [...] > This lead me to a proposition: > > Why not publishing a "ROX Standard" document? It would describe the > application directories structure, the Choices system, the drag-and-drop > saving concept, and other GUI guidelines. I know that all of this is a > work in progress, and that part of this is already written, but I think > that having up-to-date written standards may help ROX to grow. (btw, I'd > love to help with such documents, I even love to _read_ them :). All good points - I've added an 'Application Directories' page to the web-site with them on it: http://rox.sourceforge.net/appdirs.php3 The Choices system is already well documented, as is XDS (off-site). I do keep meaning to write a style guide, but never seem to get around to it! If anyone wants to submit documentation (or point out what's missing), you're very welcome. It doesn't even have to be completely accurate - it's usually easier for me to correct errors than to write the thing from scratch... > I would even propose to have this "ROX standard" play the role of other > desktops standard libraries: for an application to be ROX-integrated it > would just need to follow the standard. Of course we'd still have > standard libraries that would help writting rox software, but they > would'nt be mandatory. For example, I... HATE gtk coding, and C is not my > language of choice... OK, this is an interested proposition! :/ Absolutely! BTW, GTK coding is a lot more fun in python ;-) -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |
From: Jan W. <ja...@ea...> - 2001-04-23 18:10:38
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Thomas Leonard wrote: > All good points - I've added an 'Application Directories' page to the > web-site with them on it: > http://rox.sourceforge.net/appdirs.php3 Well, I mis something in your text about Application Directories. What about programs that depends on libraries? How do you install them by making use of Application Directories? The reason why I ask this is because I really like the Debian Packaging system. When I want to install a program I just type apt-get install program when this program depends on other files (libraries) these files will also get installed. When I want to remove the program I just type : apt-get remove program Simple! But when we make use of appdirs, how do we automate the installation of other necessary files? Is the concept of seperating libraries and program-files still useable with Application Directories? Just my 2.BEF ;-) Regards - Jan Wagemakers - ... And the blue screen flickered shades on us --The Merry Thoughts |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2001-04-24 10:07:22
|
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:09:32PM +0200, Jan Wagemakers wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > All good points - I've added an 'Application Directories' page to the > > web-site with them on it: > > http://rox.sourceforge.net/appdirs.php3 > Well, I mis something in your text about Application Directories. What about > programs that depends on libraries? How do you install them by making use of > Application Directories? The library could be supplied in a directory of its own (which you drag to /usr/lib to install). There are probably various issues to work out with that, though. For now, I plan to concentrate on the simpler problem of making applications easy to install (although apps often depend on libraries, the library is not usually part of the application). > The reason why I ask this is because I really like the Debian Packaging > system. When I want to install a program I just type > > apt-get install program > > when this program depends on other files (libraries) these files will > also get installed. When I want to remove the program I just type : > > apt-get remove program > > Simple! Yep, Debian handles all the dependancies for you. Hopefully, many of the ROX apps will end up in the Debian system. However, apt-get install is no use if you don't have root access! Hmm... I wonder how much faster dpkg would be if everything was self-contained... that's got to make checking for conflicts easier! > But when we make use of appdirs, how do we automate the installation of other > necessary files? Is the concept of seperating libraries and program-files > still useable with Application Directories? Libraries certainly should be separate. I'd keep the current system for now, and just accept that installing libraries will be harder than installing applications :-/ -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |
From: Laurent M. <mou...@on...> - 2001-04-24 13:08:44
|
Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> skribis: > I've added an 'Application Directories' page to the > web-site with them on it: > http://rox.sourceforge.net/appdirs.php3 Great! This, together with the ROX-Filer manual chapter, is good definition of application directories. If you want, I will try to put this two parts together in "formal standard paper" format (e.g. defining clearly what developper _must_ do, what they _should_ do and what they _may_ do, like in the W3C standards or the Free Desktop Standards). But I'm going on a two weeks vacation, so it wont be done before my return. On things that may be added to what is already written: - standard Apps dir location? (e.g. /usr/apps/:/usr/local/apps/:~/Apps). - file permission and owner constraints for each file inside an application dir; - naming scheme for platform specific binary dir? - description of localization dir, so that users can easily localize their apps; - description of standard command line options for AppRun, e.g. to (re)compile, start as an applet, etc. - description of Options.xml? (I'll have a few developper questions/comments on this later, but I don't have the time right now) > The Choices system is already well documented, as is XDS (off-site). > I do keep meaning to write a style guide, but never seem to get around > to it! As I said, this is something I'd love to contribute to! :) But I never used RiscOS, so I will only be able to make suggestions and let you correct them. For example, is the fact that both the Filer and Edit applications have a toolbar but no menu, only a "pop up" menu on mouse right click, a RiscOS feature? (I hope, cause I like this: it make better use of screen space than the classical menu + optional toolbar. I think NextStep had something similar, but the pop up application dir was accessible on the screen root). > Absolutely! BTW, GTK coding is a lot more fun in python ;-) I plan to seriously learn python... since almost a year. :( Anyway python is too slow on my machine to write big application, I keep it for small tools. -- Laurent MOUSSAULT |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2001-04-26 12:32:13
|
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:10:49PM +0200, Laurent MOUSSAULT wrote: > Thomas Leonard <ta...@ec...> skribis: > > > I've added an 'Application Directories' page to the > > web-site with them on it: > > http://rox.sourceforge.net/appdirs.php3 > > Great! This, together with the ROX-Filer manual chapter, is good > definition of application directories. If you want, I will try to put > this two parts together in "formal standard paper" format (e.g. defining > clearly what developper _must_ do, what they _should_ do and what they > _may_ do, like in the W3C standards or the Free Desktop Standards). But > I'm going on a two weeks vacation, so it wont be done before my return. Sounds like a good idea. The special files are: - AppRun - Help - AppIcon.xpm - .DirIcon.png - AppInfo.xml Anything else ('src', 'Options.xml', 'Messages', 'Linux-x86') is internal to the application and doesn't need mentioning. Although, it would be worth pointing out that storing several binaries is useful in network environments. > > The Choices system is already well documented, as is XDS (off-site). > > I do keep meaning to write a style guide, but never seem to get around > > to it! > > As I said, this is something I'd love to contribute to! :) But I > never used RiscOS, so I will only be able to make suggestions and let you > correct them. For example, is the fact that both the Filer and Edit > applications have a toolbar but no menu, only a "pop up" menu on mouse > right click, a RiscOS feature? (I hope, cause I like this: it make better > use of screen space than the classical menu + optional toolbar. I think > NextStep had something similar, but the pop up application dir was > accessible on the screen root). Yep, it's from RISC OS. Actually, on RISC OS, the filer and Edit didn't even have toolbars! However, `Up' was on the window frame and we can't do that on ROX. > > Absolutely! BTW, GTK coding is a lot more fun in python ;-) > > I plan to seriously learn python... since almost a year. :( Anyway > python is too slow on my machine to write big application, I keep it for > small tools. Too slow to start or to run? Archive and Edit are both written in python, but I haven't tried them on anything slower than a PII-333... -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2001-05-16 11:31:17
|
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:35:34AM +0200, Laurent MOUSSAULT wrote: [...] > Why not publishing a "ROX Standard" document? It would describe the > application directories structure, the Choices system, the drag-and-drop > saving concept, and other GUI guidelines. I know that all of this is a > work in progress, and that part of this is already written, but I think > that having up-to-date written standards may help ROX to grow. (btw, I'd > love to help with such documents, I even love to _read_ them :). OK, I've added a Style Guide to our growing collection of documents: http://rox.sourceforge.net/style.php3 Not sure which of these are obvious and which are contentious - arguments welcome ;-) -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |