Problems with new session support

[Milian Wolff]

On Wednesday 27 January 2010 22:22:29 David Nolden wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 27 Januar 2010 18:36:48 schrieb Milian Wolff:
> > And for that I would need to start every single one of my sessions, just
> > to give them a name. This totally blows imo... I'd like to have the old
> > dialog back...
> 
> I think the old session management dialog was simply one dialog too much.
> "Opening" a session means simply clicking it, what is so hard about that?

There is nothing "hard" about it. What sucks is that it's simply slow! 
Starting a new session means opening potentially many projects which and 
triggering parse jobs. Even when I just want to rename something, my PC is 
instantly slowed down. Sure, nowadays I can close KDevelop rightaway, but imo 
it still sucks.

Oh and of course the "to rename I have to close my existing session".

> Also the old dialog didn't work right. It couldn't deal with multiple
> sessions of the same name, it didn't show the contained projects, etc.
> etc.

Yes, but this could be improved, no? I really like that you added the 
contained projects and that we can now work with multiple sessions with the 
same name (even though that would be something I'd personally forbid ;-) ).

> > And note: I have nearly always more than one KDevelop instance running
> > 
> >  (with different sessions of course) and this also is utterly unsupported
> >  right now. Having the --sessions switch will help, but I'd still like to
> >  see a way to start a session from inside KDevelop without it
> >  automatically closing my last instance!
> 
> Multiple running KDevelop instances are another good reason to not allow
> deleting or renaming a not-active session: It might be active in another
> KDevelop instance, so you should better leave it alone.

But one and the same session can be opened at once, which would have the same 
problems?
 
> If you like you can add a "Start Additional Session" button to the session
> menu, then you could spawn another kdevelop instance.

And this would be less clutter than a button that opens a dialog to manage 
sessions? 

What would speak against making the session buttons open another instance 
without closing the existing one? If the user wants to switch, he can simply 
close the other instance, no? I personally would find this far better adapted 
to my personal workflow. What do you think?

-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20100127/d173d489/attachment.sig>