I suggest the user-friendly thing to do is for "require" to show a
messagebox with options...
You are attempting to use the addon: XYZ
You do not have this addon installed.
(-) Run Package Manager to download this addon [<1 MB]
(*) Run Package Manager to download ALL addons [<30 MB]--RECOMMENDED
(-) Continue executing (and maybe crash)
(OK) (Exit run)
Subtleties like detecting an internet connection to grayout the first
2 options, and updating the size estimates (a parameter in the base
package?) might be good, but not vital. Currently addons on my disk
take 28.3 MB (j602), 83.9 MB (j64-701). Small by today's
language-installation standards: on my iMac, Python.framework alone is
427 MB.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Ric Sherlock <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Ric Sherlock <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> A clear error message identifying that the required addon is not
>>> installed would be preferable IMO. And would be required anyway for
>>> the instances where a user doesn't have an Internet connection.
>>
>> The typical case where the user doesn't have an internet connection
>> would be the mobile phone case where connectivity is poor.
>
> Traveling with a laptop I am also often in this situation.
>
>> I agree that a descriptive error message can be desirable here.
>>
>> I'm not seeing why it should be preferred. (Except that it's a closer
>> match to the current behavior.)
>
> I'm uncomfortable with the install/download happening automagically. I
> think I'd be OK if I was prompted with something along the lines of
> "You don't currently have addon X installed, do you want to install it
> now?"
>
> Perhaps this stems from a (perhaps irrational) desire to have at least
> the illusion that I'm in control of what is being installed on my
> machine.
>
>>> To reduce the occurrence of this phenomenon, dependency checking
>>> functionality could be introduced to the Package Manager (addons
>>> already declare their dependencies in their manifest however the
>>> information is not used).
>>
>> I think, here, you have assumed that the code was distributed using
>> the package manager (rather than being copied off of a web site, from
>> an email message, or distributed in some other fashion).
>>
>> I'm uncomfortable with that assumption.
>
> The reason I used the phrase "reduce the occurrence" was to allow for
> those situations. IOW at least this should clean up most of the
> instances where one addon requires/depends on another.
>
>> Thanks though, for your thoughts,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>> P.S. here's the rest of the quoted material...
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Perhaps require (or some cover verb) could be written to attempt to
>>>> download an addon if it is not present?
>>>>
>>>> This would simplify some casual uses of J.
>>>>
>>>> That said, some people might want this switched off.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
