From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2007-09-18 18:42:59
|
I think it would be a good idea to have Add Panel and Remove Panel somewhere in ROX's GUI. Where to put "Remove Panel" is quite obvious:- under "Panel Options..." in the panel-specific menu. "Add Panel" isn't so easy. "Add Panel" doesn't relate to the panel the menu is opened over, so it doesn't really make logical sense, and you wouldn't be able to add a panel if there were no panels to start with. I wondered about putting it under "Backdrop..." in the backdrop menu. Then you wouldn't be able to create a panel if ROX wasn't managing the backdrop, but is that a problem? You shouldn't be able to create a panel from an instance of ROX that hasn't taken over the whole desktop anyway. Alternatively "Add Panel" could go in the "ROX-Filer" submenu. I had a quick look at the code and I'm a bit puzzled by the SOAP "Panel" call. It's defined as taking parameters Side, Name in that order with Name being optional, but most of the calls to it have Name as the first argument and Side is usually NULL. Do they get sorted by name before being passed to the function? -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2007-09-18 18:58:20
|
On 18/09/2007, Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote: > I think it would be a good idea to have Add Panel and Remove Panel > somewhere in ROX's GUI. Where to put "Remove Panel" is quite obvious:- > under "Panel Options..." in the panel-specific menu. "Add Panel" isn't > so easy. "Add Panel" doesn't relate to the panel the menu is opened > over, so it doesn't really make logical sense, and you wouldn't be able > to add a panel if there were no panels to start with. I wondered about > putting it under "Backdrop..." in the backdrop menu. Then you wouldn't > be able to create a panel if ROX wasn't managing the backdrop, but is > that a problem? Well, I use ion3, so I don't have a backdrop ;-) But having 'Add panel' on the pinboard menu does sound sensible. ("Enable pinboard" is in ROX-Filer's AppInfo.xml menu, but that's pretty strange and I don't think many people found it there) > I had a quick look at the code and I'm a bit puzzled by the SOAP "Panel" > call. It's defined as taking parameters Side, Name in that order with > Name being optional, but most of the calls to it have Name as the first > argument and Side is usually NULL. Do they get sorted by name before > being passed to the function? Name matters but order doesn't IIRC. The reason for the ordering is historical. Originally, everything was indexed by side. e.g. you'd say: $ rox --bottom=MyPanel $ rox --bottom=MyOtherPanel $ rox --bottom= Now, each panel remembers which side it goes on and you just say: $ rox --border=MyPanel (note cunning reuse of -b to avoid breaking scripts ;-) Except when removing things, where you still give the side (which is also a bit odd). -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2007-09-18 21:15:47
|
In <cd5...@ma...>, Thomas Leonard wrote: > Now, each panel remembers which side it goes on and you just say: > > $ rox --border=MyPanel > > (note cunning reuse of -b to avoid breaking scripts ;-) Ah, that's why it's --border instead of --panel? This could do with updating (again) too, to support multiple panels. Maybe by using a list (comma-separated or semicolons)? -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Lennon C. <mag...@gm...> - 2007-09-18 22:45:35
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote: > I think it would be a good idea to have Add Panel and Remove Panel > somewhere in ROX's GUI. Where to put "Remove Panel" is quite obvious:- > under "Panel Options..." in the panel-specific menu.=20 But 'Remove' isn't an option so much as something you /do/ with it. So I think it belongs at the bottom of the menu, and called 'Close Panel'. > You shouldn't be able to create a > panel from an instance of ROX that hasn't taken over the whole > desktop anyway.=20 Why not?=20 > Alternatively "Add Panel" could go in the "ROX-Filer" > submenu. I think that it really deserves it's own launcher. I think that the panels (and, for that matter, the pinboard) are controlled by the same program as the filer window should be considered an implementation detail. They behave completely differently - consider the case of dragging a file to the pinboard/panel vs a filer window. So, I think they deserve their own launchers - you click 'Panel', and a panel opens. --=20 Lennon Victor Cook "He who receives an idea from me receives without lessening, as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening" -- Thomas Jefferso |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2007-09-18 23:12:20
|
In <46f...@mx...>, Lennon Cook wrote: > Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote: > > I think it would be a good idea to have Add Panel and Remove Panel > > somewhere in ROX's GUI. Where to put "Remove Panel" is quite obvious:- > > under "Panel Options..." in the panel-specific menu. > But 'Remove' isn't an option so much as something you /do/ with it. So > I think it belongs at the bottom of the menu, and called 'Close Panel'. That's what I meant. "Under" was ambiguous; I meant another menu item under the the one that opens the dialog, not under the dialog. > > You shouldn't be able to create a > > panel from an instance of ROX that hasn't taken over the whole > > desktop anyway. > Why not? I was thinking in terms of ROX as filling two roles. Launching it as part of the session so it effectively controls the entire desktop is the way I use it, but perhaps some people just use its filer windows and use other panels and pinboard managers. > > Alternatively "Add Panel" could go in the "ROX-Filer" > > submenu. > I think that it really deserves it's own launcher. I think that the > panels (and, for that matter, the pinboard) are controlled by the same > program as the filer window should be considered an implementation > detail. They behave completely differently - consider the case > of dragging a file to the pinboard/panel vs a filer window. So, I think > they deserve their own launchers - you click 'Panel', and a panel opens. Do you mean using a separate applet (eg in ~/Apps) which sends SOAP calls to ROX? -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Lennon C. <mag...@gm...> - 2007-09-18 23:37:51
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote:=20 > That's what I meant. "Under" was ambiguous; I meant another menu item > under the the one that opens the dialog, not under the dialog. Ah. Right. +1 from me, then. > I was thinking in terms of ROX as filling two roles. Launching it as > part of the session so it effectively controls the entire desktop is > the way I use it, but perhaps some people just use its filer windows > and use other panels and pinboard managers. Also, like Thomas mentioned, some people don't have a pinboard or panels at all. > Do you mean using a separate applet (eg in ~/Apps) which sends SOAP > calls to ROX? Yes, exactly that. --=20 Lennon Victor Cook "He who receives an idea from me receives without lessening, as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening" -- Thomas Jefferson |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2007-09-19 13:05:23
|
In <200...@re...>, Tony Houghton wrote: > In <46f...@mx...>, Lennon Cook wrote: [Add Panel] > > I think that it really deserves it's own launcher. I think that the > > panels (and, for that matter, the pinboard) are controlled by the same > > program as the filer window should be considered an implementation > > detail. They behave completely differently - consider the case > > of dragging a file to the pinboard/panel vs a filer window. So, I think > > they deserve their own launchers - you click 'Panel', and a panel opens. > > Do you mean using a separate applet (eg in ~/Apps) which sends SOAP > calls to ROX? [He does] Interesting idea. What do others think? My instinct was to prefer keeping ROX-Filer self-contained. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |