Clarification on a VCS-Iface Issue

[Matt Rogers]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:

> Hi,
>
> to those of you that were involved in the Vcs-Iface Design decisions
> (and all others as well of course :):
>
> Did we decide that the actions like commit, add, copy, move (the
> non-Show-versions) have to work without _any_ gui at all, or are they
> allowed to popup dialogs when they need input like authentication
> information, or say a commit message (as import for example misses a
> commit message argument)?
>
> I'm not sure wether we discussed this at all and having had a look at
> the svn plugin its clear that we need a decision. I don't think it  
> makes
> sense to restrict these actions to non-gui-mode, as then they'd  
> have to
> fail and they can't be executed without some sort of GUI running  
> anyway.
>
> If we decide this I'll put a clear doc about the difference between
> showwXXX and XXX into the api docs. Currently I'm leaning towards
> something along the lines (assuming we allow gui from XXX methods):
>
> showXXX - allows the user to input the parameters for the action to be
> executed, always shows this GUI
>
> XXX - tries to execute the action without user-interaction, but will
> create a dialog if needed for input of missing information
>
> Andreas

This is where I dislike having two different sets of API that perform  
the same thing. It was said that this is for scriptability. However,  
doesn't a platform app have to be running to be able to run scripts  
anyways. Why can't we just normalize it so that it does what you  
suggest in the XXX case and remove the showXXX versions of the same  
functions?
- --
Matt


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFG3Mg7A6Vv5rghv0cRArteAJ940zJbiYh6aArJlQm44CvXQ0Ac/QCgsZhq
7E2WMh8BzJPaFqq4lApXKZA=
=P44Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----