On Plasmate's recent project list

[Diego Casella ([Po]lentino)]

>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Yuen Hoe Lim <yuenhoe86 at gmail.com>
> To: plasma-devel at kde.org
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:45:58 +0800
> Subject: Re: On Plasmate's recent project list
>
> Correct, the project <---> folder naming convention is suggested, not
>> required ( even though I wouldn't break that :P ).
>>
>
> Hmm, okay so this brings up the greater question of whether we want to
> force project and folder names to be identical (They don't have to be
> technically, but we can force it programmatically). I'm personally not keen,
> (I have in fact already broken that rule in the implementation) and here
> again are my list of reasons :P
>
>    - Forcing the names to be the same has the benefit of neatness, but I
>    don't think this is always desireable since we are allowing users to import
>    existing plasmoids as well as download them from GHNS (eventually), and the
>    user really has no control over the names of these external projects. It'd
>    be pretty troublesome, at least if it was me, if I was blocked from
>    importing just because I have a project locally with the same name (note
>    that if we force project and folder names to be identical, name conflicts
>    will occur even if I have a plasmoid and a runner, for example, with the
>    same name, and those are clearly different).
>    - I think importing existing plasmoids and stuff will be a fairly
>    common use-case, and the project name == folder name rule is not widely
>    enforced in existing plasmoids (my own plasmoid doesn't keep this rule..)
>    - For the above reasons I'm not convinced that there is a significant
>    advantage of forcing project and folder names to be identical, and yet
>    forcing them to be identical will make a lot of other sticky
>    conflict-resolution dialogs necessary, not just in this 'import-all'
>    feature. Examples: the regular project import, import from GHNS or even the
>    desktop if we implement that, and when the user changes the project name in
>    the metadata editor.
>
> In short, I think forcing the names to be identical will create a lot of
> extra work without really adding any significant benefit. It still can be
> done though if you guys really think it's better. What do you guys think? :)
>
> So,if we bump into a conflict situation, we rename one of the two folder,
>> good. Now, my question is: how the user will be able to distinguish the
>> "current" and "backup" version of his/her project ?
>> I mean, in the project list we can't show the directories name because
>> they must be hidden, so an appropriate way is to pick up the project name
>> from the "Name" field metadata.desktop file, and surprisingly this will be
>> 99% times the same, since previously there was a conflict, so most likely
>> the user will fill a bug report because he/she can't distingiush between the
>> two projects, and he/she is forced to look to the sources in order to find
>> the correct one.
>> So, what about showing the "Remove,overwrite,ignore" buttons, or adding
>> more informations in the project list (for example adding the date of last
>> modification could be enough to distinguish between and old backup and the
>> current project, at least when there are few projects). Any other ideas ?
>>
>
> I maintain that the former only makes sense if we force project names to be
> == folder names (in which case we'd need to add that kind of options/dialogs
> all over the place). If we keep the current status though (project names !=
> folder names), then I agree that we need distinguishers in the list. I was
> thinking adding the author name and version, because it should be relatively
> uncommon for the same guy to create two projects with the same name, so
> showing author should eliminate the larger class of duplicate names that
> result from external imports.
>

+1 for me :)

For people who actually want to maintain two projects of the same name and
> both by me, version number I think is a sensible way for me to distinguish
> between the two (so instead of doing the somewhat uncool thing of having to
> name my projects coolplasmoid_1 and coolplasmoid_2, I could have
> coolplasmoid v1 and coolplasmoid v2. Nicer IMO). Slipups that create same
> plasmoid name and same author and same version can STILL occur, but that
> would hopefully be rare, and again the fix is trivial - the user just needs
> to load either one and check his code, then flip to the metadata editor and
> key in an appropriate version number (or change the name if that's what he
> prefers).
>
> Any other ideas? :)
>
> Yours is good and, since its not a vital component in our app, we could
change its behaviour later, referring on users feedbacks :)


> ----
> Jason "moofang" Lim Yuen Hoe
> http://yuenhoe.co.cc/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20100127/43f61459/attachment.htm