Output file handling

[meik michalke]

hi,

Am Montag, 7. März 2016, 09:46:37 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> I think Aaron is right in essence, and I'd like to tackle address this,
> soon.

i like that idea, too.

> 1a) We're already asking whether to save the workspace on exit. If user
> choses to save, we'll save the output along with the data. Easy.
> 1b) What if the user choses not to save the workspace. Will we prompt
> about the output, separately (as we do for script files)? Or better,
> yet, what would a _unified_ do you want to save
> workspace/output/workplace/files dialog look like?

could this be made quicker by checkboxes in the dialog? something like

 "There are unsaved changes in this session. Please check if you would
  like to keep them:

    [ ] Save workspace
    [ ] Save output
    [ ] Save script files

  [Save chosen changes, discard the rest]   [Cancel]"

> 1c) On a more general note: Will we retain the option to save/load
> output _independently_ of an R workspace? How exactly?

 file -> export -> save current output (HTML)

> 2) Semantics of saving
> Currently, output is save, implicitly. It is written to file, directly.
> If we change from a "global" output file to associating output with a
> workspace, do we want to change?

how about writing the output directly to a file like now, but to a different 
location, i.e., somewhere below tempdir()? that would also safely remove all 
files when the R session is being closed with RKWard, we wouldn't risk 
deleting something by accident while cleaning up, or littering the base 
directory if cleaning up is not a successful as intended.

> 2a) When loading a workspace, doing work, then closing it, without
> saving, all data changes will be discarded. Would we also want discard
> changes in the output file, then?

if they're not saved, i'd vote yes.

> 2b) When saving over an existing workspace, will we also overwrite the
> associated output (without additional prompt)?

that is what i would expect if i checked the "save output" option.

how do you propose to store the files? additional separate files? personally, 
i would prefer having everything in one file, like somehow appended to the 
.RData file or all files in one zipped archive (except the scripts, although i 
also like the idea of being able to store a "session-to-go" archive i could 
send someone, including all currently open script files).

> Also, on a very general scope: Will we be ok with a 1:1 relation
> between workspace files and output files, or will we want to have the
> option to associate more than one output with a single workspace (or
> more than one workspace with a single output)?

the latter doesn't seem so useful to me at the moment. but "multiple outputs" 
sounds like an interesting idea -- on the file-side, we could save every 
result to a separate HTML file, so that the current TOC would link to those 
individual files and not jump between sections in one large file. this would 
also make it easily possible to discard individual results from the "global" 
output. maybe the TOC could be replaced by the file browser, by adding a new 
shortcut button there to the current output directory. or something more 
fancy.


viele grüße :: m.eik

-- 
  dipl. psych. meik michalke
  institut f"ur experimentelle psychologie
  abt. f"ur diagnostik und differentielle psychologie
  heinrich-heine-universit"at d-40204 d"usseldorf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/rkward-devel/attachments/20160307/1d98cabb/attachment-0001.sig>