Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
2010/2/22 Enrico Tröger > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:52:42 +1100, Lex wrote: > > Hi, > > sorry (again) for the late response...real life sucks. > > > Just go to get it, I don't want to hinder new stuff any longer. > > Don't worry, I've currently been sidetracked by writing a Python based flashcard memory trainer for my 87 year old Dad to replace the overly simplistic one he found on the internet. Real life can be strange :-) I'll get back in a few days (that is of course a software schedule estimate :-) Cheers Lex > > Regards, > Enrico > > -- > Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc > > ___ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > > ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:52:42 +1100, Lex wrote: Hi, sorry (again) for the late response...real life sucks. >As I see it there area couple of ways of implementing your suggestion: > >1. a basic build system in the core and the advanced one in the >plugin, or >2. the two plugins approach > >1. has the advantage that the basic system is always available even if >Geany is started without plugins, but then the build-in system needs >to be able to be completely disabled when the plugin takes over >2. makes the takeover problem simpler, > >But both require that everything that the build system needs to do is >available through the plugin API, and thats likely to be a big API, >much of which no one else will want to use. This includes interface >to the preferences and filetype files for saving and restoring >settings. > >Now as I understand it, what we are trying to achieve is: > >1. By default Geany provides a set of capabilities roughly equivalent >to 0.18 >2. By default Geany provides an easy configuration capability that >hides complex capability >3. An alternative that allows "configure everything" control > >Now it seems to me that it doesn't matter how complex the internal >operation of the build system is, so long as a default user sees >functionality as at >1. and 2. does not expose that complexity. > >So I propose that a build-system with full capability but only a simple >configuration dialog be in core, and the full configure dialog be in a >plugin. > >This makes the plugin interface much narrower, mostly the capability >to set the configuration. That interface would be the interface to >the "operation" object I defined in the design spec (I'll get you to >read it yet ;-) In the meantime, I realised my idea wasn't the best I ever had...:) But I do like your proposal to have it all in the core except the "heavy" configuration dialog which could be in a plugin. As long as it works in the end, I'm all for it. Just go to get it, I don't want to hinder new stuff any longer. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpmpc9nch5oc.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On 16 February 2010 03:09, Nick Treleaven wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:02:05 + > Nick Treleaven wrote: > > > > Since any command can be run by the build menu, it can be a > long-running > > > command, so why not allow a competent user to decide that it is safe to > stop > > > it if its going wrong? > > Sorry, my comment about execute commands was not in reply to the > above, only about commands that you don't want to be parsed in the > Compiler tab. > Understand. > > For the stop issue, I don't think a dialog is that bad. How often do > you need to stop things? Usually not for weeks then several times in a row ;-) > You could still have a pref, on by default, > for whether to ask/warn the user first or not. > What ANOTHER setting? :-D HeHe, sorry I couldn't resist > > I would prefer for each new 'feature' like stopability or concurrent > commands or whatever to be discussed separately, otherwise it's > difficult to find the best solution. You're saying look at all these > things people might want from the build system, hence a big and > complicated configuration dialog is necessary. I'd prefer to look at it > from where we are, what is needed incrementally. > I don't really agree, I'm aware that the dialog is a problem, I may not have been clear but I'm talking only about the internal implementation here. All of the functionality I am proposing exists in the SVN version, sensitivity of parsed commands, stopability (without dialog) etc, but which menu items each piece of functionality applies to is hard coded. I am a lazy programmer, I want to have only one type of menu item and let configuration control its functionality. That is simpler than having the same functionality controlled by lots of hard coded nested ifs as it is in the SVN version. Then, as I said in reply to Enrico, the configuration and the default configure dialog can hide as much or as little of the functionality as you want. That will take some talking about... ;-) And the complex full configuration dialog could be a plugin. Cheers Lex > > Regards, > Nick > ___ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:02:05 + Nick Treleaven wrote: > > Since any command can be run by the build menu, it can be a long-running > > command, so why not allow a competent user to decide that it is safe to stop > > it if its going wrong? Sorry, my comment about execute commands was not in reply to the above, only about commands that you don't want to be parsed in the Compiler tab. For the stop issue, I don't think a dialog is that bad. How often do you need to stop things? You could still have a pref, on by default, for whether to ask/warn the user first or not. I would prefer for each new 'feature' like stopability or concurrent commands or whatever to be discussed separately, otherwise it's difficult to find the best solution. You're saying look at all these things people might want from the build system, hence a big and complicated configuration dialog is necessary. I'd prefer to look at it from where we are, what is needed incrementally. Regards, Nick ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:59:59 +1100 Lex Trotman wrote: > What I'm arguing is that it isn't possible to sensibly decide what > limitations to apply without sounding like a dictator, "do it my way or not > at all". Let me try to ask some leading questions referring to various > restrictions in the current system. > > Why do all non-filetype dependent commands have to have their output parsed? > and so block all other commands? So now I can't use a pair of tools > > together. What about tools that display output in a GUI, eg viewers, I have > to close them and lose the output to be able to run another command. > > Same argument for filetype dependent commands of course, but compounded by > having different tools for different languages, but still if one is running > no others can. Even if their is no parsed output to be confused. > > Since any command can be run by the build menu, it can be a long-running > command, so why not allow a competent user to decide that it is safe to stop > it if its going wrong? IMO the solution to all of this is to use Execute commands, not build commands. Build commands are things that you want geany to monitor during a build. > > I think the 'make everything as configurable as possible' idea is one > > that leads to very complex dialogs, and also IMO is against the design > > of Geany. There may be other ways. > > Well, I think that making everything configurable stops you having to wire > logic in the code making it simpler. > > > > > We could solve the stop issue by having 2 stop commands, one for any > > build command and one for the execute command (as current). > > > > Another band-aid (R J&J :-) solution adding more special cases. No, you're saying add a setting for every possible command, I'm saying, just add a dialog. You're suggesting more work ;-) > > Each stop command would prompt 'Killing the process may be unsafe. Are > > you sure?'. > > Thats a good idea, but better to configure it off so only a user that at > least understands the question will enable it, rather than asking a question > of a user who has no idea of the answer. If the user doesn't understand it, they shouldn't be killing things ;-) But my point was really that having lots of settings for each command is one approach to doing this, one I (and I think Enrico) don't like. There are other ways to add configurability/flexibility which can be simpler to understand. > >> > Any increase in functionality needs to have a rationale. Do we need > >> > each command to be handled individually, or should sets of commands > >> > have the same behaviour? I prefer the latter. ... > >> The current SVN version basically works like that and I can't twist it > >> to support the build commands that I want to use, let alone what other > >> people may need. For example Frank & Thomas both have asked for > >> executes without terminal or parsing. The current SVN can't support > >> that without one more setting being added and then the next variant > >> has to be added etc. and soon it gets to where I am at now. > > > > Maybe add an execute option for this, I don't think any build commands > > should need this. > > Why not? See comments above, you are still thinking in terms of a "make" > type builder whereas it could be anything. Since the "make" commands can be > programmed from a project file it makes perfect sense that it may be a web > CMS or anything else associated with the project. > > > > > I think it's good to keep build and execute commands separate. They are > > intended for different things. > > They are only different in the C/C++ workflow, in interpreted languages > build=execute, in web languages view=execute, if either can execute any > command how can you separate them? If you don't want parsing, use execute commands. This can make understanding the build system easier for the user. > > This isn't what I meant, though I wasn't clear. I think we should have > > simple filetype build commands, 'make' commands, execute command(s), and > > then [a bit] more configurable options for project commands. > > > > As I said above, this is one particular workflow, no problem if the default > configuration follows that, but I don't see its good to LIMIT it to that. I might have forgotten to say: I don't think we should deny users any features, just that the more advanced things can be done in a way that doesn't complicate everything else. Regards, Nick ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
Hi Enrico, 2010/2/14 Enrico Tröger > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:21:03 +1100, Lex wrote: > > Heya guys, > > since we have quite different ideas of the future of the whole build > systems features and in particular about its configuration using GUI > dialogs, I got a weird idea: > > Why not moving the build system code into a plugin? > > This isn't completely new, I think to remember we discussed this before > Lex' first rewrite of the build system and decided to not do this to > keep it in the core and so always available. > As I said I don't care, so long as it can do what is needed. > > Though having the build system as a plugin has some advantages, IMO. > > First, Lex could realise it as he wants, as complex and flexible as > necessary giving users all the powers they want to and don't limit them > with any hardcoded defaults (I completely understand this wish). > Yes, provided that the plugin has sufficient control over the core to do what it wants, see 4. > > And alternatively, we could implement a very basic, limited and easy to > use(KISS) build system alternatively, similar to the old one(as in 0.18 > and before) alternatively to the advanced one. > > Unless the basic plugin installs and loads fully automatically it might be a problem for new/beginner users. However its implemented it must be automatically available as soon as Geany is installed. > Then users can choose which build system plugin they want to use and so > have even more flexibility. > > > This would probably make things a bit harder and would require some > additions to the plugin API, especially to get project support properly > involved but I think it might be worth in the long term. > > I have had a think about it and I'd say it will be a lot of additions to the plugin API. Not that thats necessarily bad, just effort someone has to do... in addition to the implementation of the build system capabilities in the plugin. > > Any ideas? > As I see it there area couple of ways of implementing your suggestion: 1. a basic build system in the core and the advanced one in the plugin, or 2. the two plugins approach 1. has the advantage that the basic system is always available even if Geany is started without plugins, but then the build-in system needs to be able to be completely disabled when the plugin takes over 2. makes the takeover problem simpler, But both require that everything that the build system needs to do is available through the plugin API, and thats likely to be a big API, much of which no one else will want to use. This includes interface to the preferences and filetype files for saving and restoring settings. Now as I understand it, what we are trying to achieve is: 1. By default Geany provides a set of capabilities roughly equivalent to 0.18 2. By default Geany provides an easy configuration capability that hides complex capability 3. An alternative that allows "configure everything" control Now it seems to me that it doesn't matter how complex the internal operation of the build system is, so long as a default user sees functionality as at 1. and 2. does not expose that complexity. So I propose that a build-system with full capability but only a simple configuration dialog be in core, and the full configure dialog be in a plugin. This makes the plugin interface much narrower, mostly the capability to set the configuration. That interface would be the interface to the "operation" object I defined in the design spec (I'll get you to read it yet ;-) Also there is no "changeover" of control, just which dialog is opened when the "Set Build Configuration" menu item is selected. And the same interface still allows Frank to hook into the process to control building dependent on file contents irrespective of which configure dialog is being used.. Any thoughts? Cheers Lex > > Regards, > Enrico > > -- > Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc > > ___ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > > ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
Hi, On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:58:34 +0100 Enrico Tröger wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:21:03 +1100, Lex wrote: > > since we have quite different ideas of the future of the whole build > systems features and in particular about its configuration using GUI > dialogs, I got a weird idea: > > Why not moving the build system code into a plugin? I think we should just move some parts of it. But more below. > This isn't completely new, I think to remember we discussed this > before Lex' first rewrite of the build system and decided to not do > this to keep it in the core and so always available. > > Though having the build system as a plugin has some advantages, IMO. > > First, Lex could realise it as he wants, as complex and flexible as > necessary giving users all the powers they want to and don't limit > them with any hardcoded defaults (I completely understand this wish). > > And alternatively, we could implement a very basic, limited and easy > to use(KISS) build system alternatively, similar to the old one(as in > 0.18 and before) alternatively to the advanced one. > > Then users can choose which build system plugin they want to use and > so have even more flexibility. > I think a good way could be to have the current status (or maybe the version from 0.18) build in, but make plugin API be able to replace/extend it with an additional plugin specified by the user. I disagree to have two plugins as the confusion for the user will be much bigger. I understand plugins always as optional additions and a build system is an elementary part of an IDE. > This would probably make things a bit harder and would require some > additions to the plugin API, especially to get project support > properly involved but I think it might be worth in the long term. I agree. This is nothing we can do within an evening-coding-session But as a midterm it would make sense. When keeping a usable default inside core and put some additions to a plugin. Well, yepp. Would like that thing. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/ pgpPCeMyOi133.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
Am Samstag, den 13.02.2010, 16:58 +0100 schrieb Enrico Tröger: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:21:03 +1100, Lex wrote: > > Heya guys, > > since we have quite different ideas of the future of the whole build > systems features and in particular about its configuration using GUI > dialogs, I got a weird idea: > > Why not moving the build system code into a plugin? > > This isn't completely new, I think to remember we discussed this before > Lex' first rewrite of the build system and decided to not do this to > keep it in the core and so always available. > > Though having the build system as a plugin has some advantages, IMO. > > First, Lex could realise it as he wants, as complex and flexible as > necessary giving users all the powers they want to and don't limit them > with any hardcoded defaults (I completely understand this wish). > > And alternatively, we could implement a very basic, limited and easy to > use(KISS) build system alternatively, similar to the old one(as in 0.18 > and before) alternatively to the advanced one. > > Then users can choose which build system plugin they want to use and so > have even more flexibility. > > > This would probably make things a bit harder and would require some > additions to the plugin API, especially to get project support properly > involved but I think it might be worth in the long term. Basic functionality for building, compiling and running programs (yes, as in 0.18 and before) should definitely keep included in Geanys core. Functionality which extends (or even might replaces) this - as Lex's effort does - could be implemented as a plugin, yes. I personally prefer any KISS solution over a solution which just provides (maybe too much) features. The hit-you-in-the-face-factor, you know? ;) From the user point of view the dialog for setting includes and arguments in current SVN trunk is okay so far concerning the hyitf-factor. It maybe could be optimized in other apsects, in special I am missing tooltips which explain the fields as in any other place in Geany. The usage of the GtkExpander in the right place could even reduce the hyitf-factor a bit. ;) Regards, Dominic -- Dominic Hopf http://dominichopf.de/ Key Fingerprint: A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:21:03 +1100, Lex wrote: Heya guys, since we have quite different ideas of the future of the whole build systems features and in particular about its configuration using GUI dialogs, I got a weird idea: Why not moving the build system code into a plugin? This isn't completely new, I think to remember we discussed this before Lex' first rewrite of the build system and decided to not do this to keep it in the core and so always available. Though having the build system as a plugin has some advantages, IMO. First, Lex could realise it as he wants, as complex and flexible as necessary giving users all the powers they want to and don't limit them with any hardcoded defaults (I completely understand this wish). And alternatively, we could implement a very basic, limited and easy to use(KISS) build system alternatively, similar to the old one(as in 0.18 and before) alternatively to the advanced one. Then users can choose which build system plugin they want to use and so have even more flexibility. This would probably make things a bit harder and would require some additions to the plugin API, especially to get project support properly involved but I think it might be worth in the long term. Any ideas? Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgp8HsvXXxre4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:53:59 +0100, Thomas wrote: OT: >I'm still thinking that - if Geany wants to call itself an IDE - we I think we all agree Geany isn't a real IDE and I think that's fine. Geany might be just an advanced text editor or whatever. And then, these are just terms, what counts are the features, speed and usability. Then, I don't mind whether one might call it IDE, text editor or just 'crap' :). Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpvFLw4JZ0i1.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On 12 February 2010 05:32, Nick Treleaven wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:04:07 +1100 > Lex Trotman wrote: > >> On 11 February 2010 00:01, Nick Treleaven wrote: >> > I think making all functionality available is overkill. We've got to >> > come up with a design that makes sense for each set of commands. >> >> Yes, but hard coding such restrictions increases the complications of >> the code (those special cases) and then forces users who need >> something else to change code not just configure. Including having to >> change existing special cases (or to ask you to change it). There >> should be much less work to create and maintain a good general >> solution. > > The goal is to provide understandable options, not to simplify > implementation. I doubt that the implementation is/will be too complex > though. > > The problem with mass configurability is that it can still harm the > casual user when they accidentally change something then have to go and > study the manual. > > I'm actually arguing for limiting complexity, options should be > specific (see below). What I'm arguing is that it isn't possible to sensibly decide what limitations to apply without sounding like a dictator, "do it my way or not at all". Let me try to ask some leading questions referring to various restrictions in the current system. Why do all non-filetype dependent commands have to have their output parsed? and so block all other commands? So now I can't use a pair of tools together. What about tools that display output in a GUI, eg viewers, I have to close them and lose the output to be able to run another command. Same argument for filetype dependent commands of course, but compounded by having different tools for different languages, but still if one is running no others can. Even if their is no parsed output to be confused. Since any command can be run by the build menu, it can be a long-running command, so why not allow a competent user to decide that it is safe to stop it if its going wrong? > >> > For example, you can only have one build command stopable, unless you >> > make new build tabs in the message window. I think this is too complex. >> >> Agree that there should be only one output to the message window, and >> I have already written that in the spec. (I like the tabbed idea, >> maybe Geany version 3.0 :-) But the dialog wouldn't show that, its a >> function of the menu operation. When a parsed command is run, all the >> other parsed menu items become insensitive. >> >> For stopability, (if thats a word) the decision which command is >> stopable has to be made at the time a menu item is selected, the one >> thats selected becomes stopable, the other parsed menu items become >> insensitive. >> >> But there are some build commands that should NOT be stopable, ever, >> because of the risk of corruption ( see past discussions with Thomas >> and Enrico), so stopability needs to be able to be turned off for >> them, and since in general we don't know what commands are running, it >> has to be off by default. > > I think the 'make everything as configurable as possible' idea is one > that leads to very complex dialogs, and also IMO is against the design > of Geany. There may be other ways. Well, I think that making everything configurable stops you having to wire logic in the code making it simpler. > > We could solve the stop issue by having 2 stop commands, one for any > build command and one for the execute command (as current). > Another band-aid (R J&J :-) solution adding more special cases. > Each stop command would prompt 'Killing the process may be unsafe. Are > you sure?'. Thats a good idea, but better to configure it off so only a user that at least understands the question will enable it, rather than asking a question of a user who has no idea of the answer. > >> > Any increase in functionality needs to have a rationale. Do we need >> > each command to be handled individually, or should sets of commands >> > have the same behaviour? I prefer the latter. >> >> Yes thats a reasonable way to do it, but what are the groups and what >> are their characteristics. I couldn't come up with a sensible set of >> fixed groupings that don't unreasonably limit the behaviour. >> >> The current SVN version basically works like that and I can't twist it >> to support the build commands that I want to use, let alone what other >> people may need. For example Frank & Thomas both have asked for >> executes without terminal or parsing. The current SVN can't support >> that without one more setting being added and then the next variant >> has to be added etc. and soon it gets to where I am at now. > > Maybe add an execute option for this, I don't think any build commands > should need this. Why not? See comments above, you are still thinking in terms of a "make" type builder whereas it could be anything. Since the "make" commands can be programmed from a project file it makes perfect sense that it may be a web
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
Hi All, Committed to bs2 branch is a version of the prototype which uses sub-dialogs for changing details. It took me so long to figure out how to have non-modal children of a modal dialog, I.ve learned new GTK :-) Due to the above the sub-dialog isn't very pretty, but I'm sure you all can see past that to consider if the paradigm works better. Cheers Lex ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:04:07 +1100 Lex Trotman wrote: > On 11 February 2010 00:01, Nick Treleaven > wrote: > > I think making all functionality available is overkill. We've got to > > come up with a design that makes sense for each set of commands. > > Yes, but hard coding such restrictions increases the complications of > the code (those special cases) and then forces users who need > something else to change code not just configure. Including having to > change existing special cases (or to ask you to change it). There > should be much less work to create and maintain a good general > solution. The goal is to provide understandable options, not to simplify implementation. I doubt that the implementation is/will be too complex though. The problem with mass configurability is that it can still harm the casual user when they accidentally change something then have to go and study the manual. I'm actually arguing for limiting complexity, options should be specific (see below). > > For example, you can only have one build command stopable, unless you > > make new build tabs in the message window. I think this is too complex. > > Agree that there should be only one output to the message window, and > I have already written that in the spec. (I like the tabbed idea, > maybe Geany version 3.0 :-) But the dialog wouldn't show that, its a > function of the menu operation. When a parsed command is run, all the > other parsed menu items become insensitive. > > For stopability, (if thats a word) the decision which command is > stopable has to be made at the time a menu item is selected, the one > thats selected becomes stopable, the other parsed menu items become > insensitive. > > But there are some build commands that should NOT be stopable, ever, > because of the risk of corruption ( see past discussions with Thomas > and Enrico), so stopability needs to be able to be turned off for > them, and since in general we don't know what commands are running, it > has to be off by default. I think the 'make everything as configurable as possible' idea is one that leads to very complex dialogs, and also IMO is against the design of Geany. There may be other ways. We could solve the stop issue by having 2 stop commands, one for any build command and one for the execute command (as current). Each stop command would prompt 'Killing the process may be unsafe. Are you sure?'. > > Any increase in functionality needs to have a rationale. Do we need > > each command to be handled individually, or should sets of commands > > have the same behaviour? I prefer the latter. > > Yes thats a reasonable way to do it, but what are the groups and what > are their characteristics. I couldn't come up with a sensible set of > fixed groupings that don't unreasonably limit the behaviour. > > The current SVN version basically works like that and I can't twist it > to support the build commands that I want to use, let alone what other > people may need. For example Frank & Thomas both have asked for > executes without terminal or parsing. The current SVN can't support > that without one more setting being added and then the next variant > has to be added etc. and soon it gets to where I am at now. Maybe add an execute option for this, I don't think any build commands should need this. I think it's good to keep build and execute commands separate. They are intended for different things. > So I gave up and made everything settable :-) no special cases or > inconsistent operation :-) but as you and Enrico say, making the > configuration GUI approachable is a problem :-( > > It would be possible to have a separate dialog to define new groups > and their characteristics so all that needs to be set in the main > configuration dialog is the group name from a combo box. > > The advanced dialog would only have 6 characteristics to set, or > actually only 4 when you consider some are just an enable for the > following value. > > Default groups and their characteristics: > > - Internal - internal and which internal item > - Parsed - parsed, not stopable, regex > - Execute - to terminal, stopable, stop label "Stop" > - Execute no terminal - no terminal, stopable, stop label "Stop" > > Lets see what that can do for us. This isn't what I meant, though I wasn't clear. I think we should have simple filetype build commands, 'make' commands, execute command(s), and then [a bit] more configurable options for project commands. This is perhaps a bit vague but I'm trying to say the extra configurability should be linked to what it's needed for, not an option for every single command. Regards, Nick ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:53:59 +0100 Thomas Martitz wrote: > But the limited build > settings it had before committing the branch basically made it a text > editor, not an IDE. I now more or less depend on the new capabilities of > the build settings, so if you remove features I'm going to be dependant > on the bloody terminal (VTE) feature again which simply sucks for just > building a project. I don't think anyone mentioned removing features from trunk ;-) We're discussing Lex's new prototype. Regards, Nick ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
I'm still thinking that - if Geany wants to call itself an IDE - we should allow the maximum of build configurations because there is about an infinite amount of that out there. I can agree with grouping it, but *limiting* it intentionally for no obvious reasons (the advanced parts can be hidden until "advanced settings" is checked") defeats the goal of being an IDE. Before the v1 build system was committed into trunk, I didn't even dare to call it an IDE, because build settings belong to it. This, and an integrated debugger, is what an IDE seperates from a simple text editor (hence my remark in the very first sentence). The current dialog is a bit bloated indeed. I could imagine to solve it by hiding advanced settings (like the working directory), by providing an assitant which leads through the configuration or by a multi-tabbed interfaced to group similar build-system settings. I must admit that I worked a bit with visual studio in the meantime. I'm not saying this bloody bloat thing (it's really huge, but it runs fast and has a lot of features[I probably used only 2% of it]) is the way to go, but (as I mentioned) its integrated debugger and build settings is what I expect from an IDE. The "integrated debugger" is a plugin. Fine. But the limited build settings it had before committing the branch basically made it a text editor, not an IDE. I now more or less depend on the new capabilities of the build settings, so if you remove features I'm going to be dependant on the bloody terminal (VTE) feature again which simply sucks for just building a project. Best regards. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On 11 February 2010 00:01, Nick Treleaven wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:40:57 +0100 > Enrico Tröger wrote: > >> IMO way too much information. >> I already said that about the current build settings in the SVN version >> and this one is even worse, IMHO. Yes, for users who want the ultimate >> control of every single build option that could be useful but, as also >> said multiple times before, the idea of Geany's build system was to be >> easy to use and to just get the job done. From my experience, this was >> much appreciated by users (getting lots of mail stating this). Well, >> this feature we will loose with the current rework in the SVN version >> and with the mockup in the new branch, it won't get better, IMHO. >> >> Sorry when this sounds a bit hard and I do understand your motivation >> to make it all more flexible. But it's maybe just not want >> some/most/all users want. > > I agree, I don't like this design, sorry Lex ;-) Hey, thats what I made a python prototype for, so no sorry needed. > > I think making all functionality available is overkill. We've got to > come up with a design that makes sense for each set of commands. Yes, but hard coding such restrictions increases the complications of the code (those special cases) and then forces users who need something else to change code not just configure. Including having to change existing special cases (or to ask you to change it). There should be much less work to create and maintain a good general solution. > > For example, you can only have one build command stopable, unless you > make new build tabs in the message window. I think this is too complex. Agree that there should be only one output to the message window, and I have already written that in the spec. (I like the tabbed idea, maybe Geany version 3.0 :-) But the dialog wouldn't show that, its a function of the menu operation. When a parsed command is run, all the other parsed menu items become insensitive. For stopability, (if thats a word) the decision which command is stopable has to be made at the time a menu item is selected, the one thats selected becomes stopable, the other parsed menu items become insensitive. But there are some build commands that should NOT be stopable, ever, because of the risk of corruption ( see past discussions with Thomas and Enrico), so stopability needs to be able to be turned off for them, and since in general we don't know what commands are running, it has to be off by default. > > Any increase in functionality needs to have a rationale. Do we need > each command to be handled individually, or should sets of commands > have the same behaviour? I prefer the latter. Yes thats a reasonable way to do it, but what are the groups and what are their characteristics. I couldn't come up with a sensible set of fixed groupings that don't unreasonably limit the behaviour. The current SVN version basically works like that and I can't twist it to support the build commands that I want to use, let alone what other people may need. For example Frank & Thomas both have asked for executes without terminal or parsing. The current SVN can't support that without one more setting being added and then the next variant has to be added etc. and soon it gets to where I am at now. So I gave up and made everything settable :-) no special cases or inconsistent operation :-) but as you and Enrico say, making the configuration GUI approachable is a problem :-( It would be possible to have a separate dialog to define new groups and their characteristics so all that needs to be set in the main configuration dialog is the group name from a combo box. The advanced dialog would only have 6 characteristics to set, or actually only 4 when you consider some are just an enable for the following value. Default groups and their characteristics: - Internal - internal and which internal item - Parsed - parsed, not stopable, regex - Execute - to terminal, stopable, stop label "Stop" - Execute no terminal - no terminal, stopable, stop label "Stop" Lets see what that can do for us. Cheers Lex > > Regards, > Nick > ___ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:40:57 +0100 Enrico Tröger wrote: > IMO way too much information. > I already said that about the current build settings in the SVN version > and this one is even worse, IMHO. Yes, for users who want the ultimate > control of every single build option that could be useful but, as also > said multiple times before, the idea of Geany's build system was to be > easy to use and to just get the job done. From my experience, this was > much appreciated by users (getting lots of mail stating this). Well, > this feature we will loose with the current rework in the SVN version > and with the mockup in the new branch, it won't get better, IMHO. > > Sorry when this sounds a bit hard and I do understand your motivation > to make it all more flexible. But it's maybe just not want > some/most/all users want. I agree, I don't like this design, sorry Lex ;-) I think making all functionality available is overkill. We've got to come up with a design that makes sense for each set of commands. For example, you can only have one build command stopable, unless you make new build tabs in the message window. I think this is too complex. Any increase in functionality needs to have a rationale. Do we need each command to be handled individually, or should sets of commands have the same behaviour? I prefer the latter. Regards, Nick ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
Hi Enrico, > IMO way too much information. Then I guess Geany does too much :-) because other than working directory the build-system adds no extra functionality. As you say below its all about configuration. At the moment a lot of the configuration invisibly set by where in the menu an item appears, both limiting and confusing. Maybe I'm slow, but all the time I have been working on the build system I didn't really realise this point, and that its the cause of many code complications and the configuration problems I had.. If it took that long for me to realise that this hidden, hard coded paradigm exists I am sure that it is going to be a problem for others as well so I want to remove it. > I already said that about the current build settings in the SVN version > and this one is even worse, IMHO. Yes, for users who want the ultimate > control of every single build option that could be useful but, as also > said multiple times before, the idea of Geany's build system was to be > easy to use and to just get the job done. From my experience, this was > much appreciated by users (getting lots of mail stating this). Well, > this feature we will loose with the current rework in the SVN version > and with the mockup in the new branch, it won't get better, IMHO. I understand your point, thats why I made a prototype thats easy to fiddle with so that we can try things out. The intention is to make it better. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that functionality should not be available to the user if its in the software, but i agree that simple things should, no MUST be simple. The approach is to allow progressive expansion of detail as users get more confident and need more complex control. Clearly the rate of expansion is a bit too fast in the current version :-). But I thought I would start with the simplest expansion paradigm and we can go from there. As an alternative to expansion we could have sub-dialogs for detail. Personally I like spreadsheets where I can see it all spread of in front of me but I understand the apparent complexity problem. > > Sorry when this sounds a bit hard and I do understand your motivation > to make it all more flexible. But it's maybe just not want > some/most/all users want. > >>Please be warned, if you havn't read the spec (which is the only >>documentation until the manual is updated) that this looks complex >>when you first see it in advanced mode. But the dialog does no more >>than bring together settings that already exist in various hidden >>places in Geany. > > I skimmed over the docs but it didn't make it better. The dialog is > still heavily crowded and quite complex. > What about when its not in advanced mode and no project, There is a picture of the menu to select which menu item settings you want to adjust, and for each item only 3 entries (for label, command and working directory) for each of the filetype and the user prefs. With a project open you have the two extra sets of 3 to save in the project. > >>As you said, this is a prototype which maybe needs more work. - Also >>from the user point of view and in GUI design. Just a suggestion: You >>could work with the GUI element from GTK which allows to extend the >>dialog via clicking on the arrow (as in the Find or Replace dialog in > > Just for the record, iIt's called GtkExpander. I'll see if that can be used to allow more progressive expansion an operation at a time. Other suggestions welcome. Cheers Lex > > > Regards, > Enrico > > -- > Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc > > ___ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > > ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On 6 February 2010 23:47, Dominic Hopf wrote: > Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 21:21 +1100 schrieb Lex Trotman: >> Hi All, >> >> I have created a branch for further development of the build system called >> bs2. >> >> I have added the current state of the design spec to the doc directory >> and a temporary Python prototype implementation of the configure >> dialog in scripts (since I know how much you all hate reading GUI >> descriptions). It is intended to delete this before merge but it will >> be useful to get ideas on making it usable, for example which fields >> should be visible normally and which only in advanced mode. >> >> @Nick as the padding guru you might have some suggestions, in my >> opinion applying padding to rows containing buttons or combo boxes >> makes a disproportionate increase in size, so for now I've taken it >> off, see what you think. >> >> Running the script (python build_dialog_prototype.py) produces a >> window with two buttons, one produces the dialog as it will be when no >> project is open and one as it will be when a project is open. Clearly >> the dialog has no code or data behind it, but the "advanced" and "show >> all" buttons work. Apply, cancel and ok all close the dialog. >> >> Please be warned, if you havn't read the spec (which is the only >> documentation until the manual is updated) that this looks complex >> when you first see it in advanced mode. But the dialog does no more >> than bring together settings that already exist in various hidden >> places in Geany. >> >> Cheers >> Lex > > Wouldn't it have had to be easier to design that with glade instead of > writing python scripts? - Or alternative, a pen and paper? ;) Pen & paper is hard to share via e-mail :) & I have problems with Glade. The good thing about the Python approach is that I can just translate the GTK calls into C when it is ok. > > When seeing this from a user point of view there is very much > information to enter. A bit "overload" on the screen - in special the > advanced mode. Yes, you warned me. ;) > > As you said, this is a prototype which maybe needs more work. - Also > from the user point of view and in GUI design. Just a suggestion: You > could work with the GUI element from GTK which allows to extend the > dialog via clicking on the arrow (as in the Find or Replace dialog in > Geany) :) Thats a good suggestion, it would reduce the "hit you in the face" factor as only one part needs unrolling at a time, I'll try it. > > Regards, > Dominic > > -- > Dominic Hopf > > http://dominichopf.de/ > > Key Fingerprint: > A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D > > ___ > Geany-devel mailing list > Geany-devel@uvena.de > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > > ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:47:33 +0100, Dominic wrote: >Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 21:21 +1100 schrieb Lex Trotman: >> Hi All, >> >> I have created a branch for further development of the build system >> called bs2. >> >> I have added the current state of the design spec to the doc >> directory and a temporary Python prototype implementation of the >> configure dialog in scripts (since I know how much you all hate >> reading GUI descriptions). It is intended to delete this before >> merge but it will be useful to get ideas on making it usable, for >> example which fields should be visible normally and which only in >> advanced mode. >> >> @Nick as the padding guru you might have some suggestions, in my >> opinion applying padding to rows containing buttons or combo boxes >> makes a disproportionate increase in size, so for now I've taken it >> off, see what you think. >> >> Running the script (python build_dialog_prototype.py) produces a >> window with two buttons, one produces the dialog as it will be when >> no project is open and one as it will be when a project is open. >> Clearly the dialog has no code or data behind it, but the "advanced" >> and "show all" buttons work. Apply, cancel and ok all close the >> dialog. >> >> Please be warned, if you havn't read the spec (which is the only >> documentation until the manual is updated) that this looks complex >> when you first see it in advanced mode. But the dialog does no more >> than bring together settings that already exist in various hidden >> places in Geany. >> >> Cheers >> Lex > >Wouldn't it have had to be easier to design that with glade instead of >writing python scripts? - Or alternative, a pen and paper? ;) > >When seeing this from a user point of view there is very much >information to enter. A bit "overload" on the screen - in special the >advanced mode. Yes, you warned me. ;) IMO way too much information. I already said that about the current build settings in the SVN version and this one is even worse, IMHO. Yes, for users who want the ultimate control of every single build option that could be useful but, as also said multiple times before, the idea of Geany's build system was to be easy to use and to just get the job done. From my experience, this was much appreciated by users (getting lots of mail stating this). Well, this feature we will loose with the current rework in the SVN version and with the mockup in the new branch, it won't get better, IMHO. Sorry when this sounds a bit hard and I do understand your motivation to make it all more flexible. But it's maybe just not want some/most/all users want. >Please be warned, if you havn't read the spec (which is the only >documentation until the manual is updated) that this looks complex >when you first see it in advanced mode. But the dialog does no more >than bring together settings that already exist in various hidden >places in Geany. I skimmed over the docs but it didn't make it better. The dialog is still heavily crowded and quite complex. >As you said, this is a prototype which maybe needs more work. - Also >from the user point of view and in GUI design. Just a suggestion: You >could work with the GUI element from GTK which allows to extend the >dialog via clicking on the arrow (as in the Find or Replace dialog in Just for the record, iIt's called GtkExpander. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc pgpMEz8Na71i1.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Build system branch 2.0
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2010, 21:21 +1100 schrieb Lex Trotman: > Hi All, > > I have created a branch for further development of the build system called > bs2. > > I have added the current state of the design spec to the doc directory > and a temporary Python prototype implementation of the configure > dialog in scripts (since I know how much you all hate reading GUI > descriptions). It is intended to delete this before merge but it will > be useful to get ideas on making it usable, for example which fields > should be visible normally and which only in advanced mode. > > @Nick as the padding guru you might have some suggestions, in my > opinion applying padding to rows containing buttons or combo boxes > makes a disproportionate increase in size, so for now I've taken it > off, see what you think. > > Running the script (python build_dialog_prototype.py) produces a > window with two buttons, one produces the dialog as it will be when no > project is open and one as it will be when a project is open. Clearly > the dialog has no code or data behind it, but the "advanced" and "show > all" buttons work. Apply, cancel and ok all close the dialog. > > Please be warned, if you havn't read the spec (which is the only > documentation until the manual is updated) that this looks complex > when you first see it in advanced mode. But the dialog does no more > than bring together settings that already exist in various hidden > places in Geany. > > Cheers > Lex Wouldn't it have had to be easier to design that with glade instead of writing python scripts? - Or alternative, a pen and paper? ;) When seeing this from a user point of view there is very much information to enter. A bit "overload" on the screen - in special the advanced mode. Yes, you warned me. ;) As you said, this is a prototype which maybe needs more work. - Also from the user point of view and in GUI design. Just a suggestion: You could work with the GUI element from GTK which allows to extend the dialog via clicking on the arrow (as in the Find or Replace dialog in Geany) :) Regards, Dominic -- Dominic Hopf http://dominichopf.de/ Key Fingerprint: A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
