[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: good additional field for .kdelnk files to have
From:       David Faure <David.Faure () insa-lyon ! fr>
Date:       1999-02-16 21:57:27
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 04:45:39PM -0500, Preston Brown wrote:
> The GNOME guys, which largely based their config files off our own kdelnk
> stuff, have a good field which I don't believe we have.  If we do,
> disregard it, ignore me. :)
> 
> In addition to the "Exec" field, they have "TryExec".  This is very cool
> -- it is a field which if present looks in the path for the application
> given, and if it can't be found, the entry will not show up in panel menus
> and the like. 
If I understand well, it's a boolean field ?

>  Thus, instead of having to run an app like appfinder, they
> just ship a whole lot of kdelnks for apps that may or may not be present,
> and only the ones which are actually present show up.
> 
> What do people think?  David?

That's another approach which results in exactly the same thing as
kappfinder, doesn't it ? Then the question is what is better in using this ?
Let's try to answer it :
- compatilibity with Gnome, of course
- it completely avoids a kdelnk pointing to nowhere. (Even for KDE
apps. For instance when removing a binary, or a wrong installation)

What happens if TryExec is false ? The entry shows up no matter if the app
is there ? What is gained by that ?

=> wouldn't the solution be to simply _not_ change the kdelnk syntax and
add the check in kpanel that the executable exists before showing it.

The problem is that (whatever the solution), kfm would need to do the check 
too (to avoid showing non-existent apps in the RMB popupmenu).
So I think the drawback is that kpanel and kfm startup time will both grow.
No because of inexistent programs, but simply because of the time it takes
to check each and every program on the PATH....

Hum, summary : some pros and some cons...

Other opinions ?

Is there a *very quick* way to check programs against $PATH ?

The first step, IMHO, would be to add such a check to either kfm or kpanel, 
and measure the increase in the startup time...
The good thing about kappfinder is that it does the check once, and after
that you're done with it...

-- 
 ____________________________________________________________________
|                                                                    |
|  David FAURE                                                       |
|  E-mail : David.Faure@insa-lyon.fr, faure@kde.org                  |
|  http://www.insa-lyon.fr/People/AEDI/dfaure/index.html             |
|____________________________________________________________________|

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]