On 22 Nov 2002 14:35:54 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:32:01PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > > On 22 Nov 2002 10:42:51 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > [SNIP SNIP SNIP] > > > > Sure, this would all work, and almost nobody would be able to use > > > FvwmProxy because it can be configured only by experts. Enough > > > said, do what you want with the module, I will retire from any > > > further module design. > > > > In my suggestion there are no *Command options and no functions, just > > SelectCommand or as Jason suggested "Action Select". > > Reducing the number of configurable actions limits flexibility > severely. When you don't have a "Mark" command, the module > response must be hard coded. The same is true for any actions > that should be run when the proxies are closed or aborted. > > > ConfigFvwmProxyDefaults file is not needed. > > > > Please describe the functionality that would be missing. I don't see any. > > Both "FvwmProxy_Circulate Next (CurrentPage)" and "SendToModule FvwmProxy > > Circulate Next (CurrentPage)" are equally intuitive (or not intuitive) for > > a user. > > I never said functionality would be missing. I said inexperienced > users will not be able to run FvwmProxy. Exactly like they are > not able to run FvwmEvent, FvwmForm, FvwmScript or FvwmButtons. > > The config just too complex.
In this case I don't think that hardcoding the hide/show/mark/abort functionality is bad or will reduce any functionality. But maybe I am missing some usage. This is why I would like you to describe any missing practical (not theoretical) usage if this configurablity is dropped. My intend is not to make FvwmProxy harder to use or configure or be less functional. Quite an opposite. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
