[Bulk] Re: RFC: KRecentFilesAction: hide urls

[Johnathan Burchill]

On Thursday 12 April 2007 9:09 am, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Thursday 12 April 2007 14:38, Johnathan Burchill wrote:
> > > I'm against hiding the url information. Although it may be
> > > application dependend. In kate/kwrite at least it is bad, because the
> > > numbering is arbitrary you can't tell eg what Makefile, Makefile(1),
> > > Makefile(2),Makefile(3) .... are, so the recent file acation would be
> > > quite unusable for me.
> >
> > If we're not going to have the option of hiding the url information,
> > then what is the point of having the short name?
>
> To make it easier to read by making sure the user does not have to scan to
> the last directory separator and start to read.
>
Okay, it was a stupid question :)

> > IMHO it is application-dependent. In KDar the archives usually have
> > unique names with dates automatically written into the filename.
>
> How did you reach that conclusion? Is it impossible to move the files?  Or
> have them on several remote locations?
> You assume that users of KDar are somehow different from the set of users
> that also use this action, and you are leaving all users of KDar with a
> slightly different UI from the rest of KDE.   As well as those that do
> not follow the 'wanted' way of working with a clumsy UI.
>
> > Long
> > pathnames can be harder to scan than just the list of short names.
> > Particularly true when all of the files are in the same "backup"
> > directory.
>
> If there was just one directory the user could ever put his files in, then
> sure.  Is that the case?

Not really. There is a default directory where backups are stored, but users 
aren't committed to using it. Thanks for the comments, I'll stick with the 
API behaviour.

Cheers,
JB