On 09/20/2012 07:17 AM, Ildar Mulyukov wrote:
As promised, my 1st proposal (in two parts).
1. As Patrick confirms, "Contexts are profiles independent of each other".
a. the "Context" word is quite inconvenient and ... "context-specific",
it isn't clear enough for understanding. Maybe it's worth to use the
"profile" word for that, leaving "context" as a legacy term meaning a
_profile_.
I don't like it. It would be too confusing. The way the word "profile"
is used elsewhere, it usually signifies a concept which has absolutely
nothing to do with what SyncEvolution contexts are. Hence, using the
word "profile" here would mean forcing people to unlearn what they think
profile means, and make them think "why do they call this a profile,
when it's not like what I'm used to calling a profile? why didn't they
call it something meaningful and less confusing, like, hmm, contexts?"
A SyncEvolution context is a bit like a directory, a domain, or a
namespace, but *not* like a profile, as far as I'm concerned. I'm quite
unable to think of a SyncEvolution context as a profile, it just doesn't
make sense.
> b. For syncevolution cmdline tool: Move it from the @<context> part to a
> --profile <profile name>. Again, for clear understanding.
>
> What do ya think?
I don't like this either. I prefer commandlines to be short. And if
you're able to think of a context as a domain, then the @ notation makes
quite a bit of sense. Like an email address.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
