From kde-devel Tue Jul 13 10:23:35 1999 From: iglio () fub ! it (Pietro Iglio) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:23:35 +0000 To: kde-devel Subject: Re: RFC: new KPanel application menu X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=93186127319536 At 11.57 13/07/99 +0200, Waldo Bastian wrote: >Pietro Iglio wrote: > >> Note that I'm not considering any other directory layer, such >> as the "group" layer suggested by Stephan because (a) the >> implementation would be much harder and (b) more than two >> layers can be too confusing for users and administrators. >> >> Comments and criticisms will be appreciated. > >First of all I like it very much. > >Some small points: > >$HOME/.kde and $KDEDIR don't exist any more in KDE 2.0. > >Instead of $HOME/.kde you should use 'locateLocal()' to find >the location where to store stuff. By default this will be >$HOME/.kde but you can't count on it. > >$KDEDIR doesn't exist any more either. Instead the user can >provide a ordered list of directories which to check. When >searching for resources, the most 'specific' directory is >looked up first. > >For kpanel I suggest to use for 'publishing' the >"least specific directory the user can write to". > >Example: >It he user has >KDEDIRS="/opt/kde:/usr/local/kde:/home/department/.kde:$HOME/.kde" > >Then the "most specific" directory is "$HOME/.kde" >the "least specific" directory is "/opt/kde". > >When the user has write access to /usr/local/kde, >/home/department/.kde and $HOME/.kde >publishing the application will write it to /usr/local/kde. In principle, I agree with you. Your approach would also be more complete, because you can publish at any level (eg. local, workgroup, all users). In practice, however, I think that more than two levels can confuse users. Two levels (personal/global) looks like a right trade-off between flexibility and simplicity. Thus I'm suggesting, at least for applications, to keep the old, two-levels model. This is a personal opinion. A more objective problem is that the implementation with n-layers would be, at a glance, harder than the one proposed. I have to think about that. >If you think it is hard to do this with the current implementation >of kstddirs I will be happy to provide additional functionality. OK. -- Pietro