Hi, all The updated proposal is posted at Internally http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal-v2.txt Diff file http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal.diff
Externally ???http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/464 I am reseting the time out to be August 4th. Thanks --Irene On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:27 +0800, Jim Li wrote: > I've updated the one page and summarized the question and answers. > > Q1. There are some similar functionality projects. > > I'v listed the known project with similar function in the ARC material. > > Q2. Mime type file extension conflicts. > > There is a potential Mime Type conflicts when integrating projects with > overlap functionality. Although Planner (LSARC/2008/454) and Openproj > are both project management tools, but they have their own file format > and different file extensions, *.planner and *mrprojects for Planner, > *.pod for Openproj. There are no Mime type conflicts for Planner > and Openproj. > I'll keep my eyes on this kind of stuff in future. > > Thanks > Jim > > > > Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is no > > conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people > > want. I think the important part is making sure the default is easily > > changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the default > > programs control panel and also has some right menu selections that > > let you "Open file with..." type functionality so you can override the > > default when required. I'm pretty sure that functionality is already > > in gnome but it would be nice to have that confirmed as we add > > different packages with overlapping functionality. > > > > Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote > > "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most obvious > > cases. > > > > Edward Hunter wrote: > >> It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue > >> combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type > >> (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the > >> default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one > >> and that is a decision too. :-) > >> > >> The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does > >> that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking A > >> prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the > >> business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both > >> bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when > >> the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In > >> particular if different users on the same system choose different > >> defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. > >> -edh > >> > >> > >> Torrey McMahon wrote: > >>> Jim Li wrote: > >>>> Torrey: > >>>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of > >>>>>>> other projects come across lately that integrate functionality > >>>>>>> that matches an other project? Why would this be different? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > >>>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams > >>>>>> delivering > >>>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common > >>>>>> dependencies, > >>>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. > >>>>> > >>>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) > >>>>> > >>>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is > >>>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. > >>>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, > >>>> so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this > >>> case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add > >>> every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to > >>> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the > >>> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an > >>> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. > >>> > >>> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? > >>> How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the > >>> default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, > >>> but something we should figure out in the near term....if someone > >>> hasn't already. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
