[Thunar-dev] Right-clickable pathbar?

[Danny Milosavljevic]

Hi,

Am Freitag, den 17.02.2006, 12:21 -0700 schrieb Peter:
> Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> 
> >Peter wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Right now, when one clicks the pathbar, well, nothing happens.  Would it
> >>be feasible to make pathbar buttons have the same right-click menu as a
> >>folder in the main view would?  I searched bugzilla and couldn't find
> >>anything, but is this in the works?  Shall I submit a feature request?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Remember, the path bar is a replacement for the (text-based) location
> >bar, not for the icon/detail view, and as such, its primary (and
> >probably its sole) purpose is navigation. The only action from the
> >context menu that may make sense here, is the "Open in new Window" action.
> >  
> >
> Actually, this is why I sent the e-mail.  I wanted to open a pathbar
> button in a new window, and I instinctively right-clicked it. 
> Instinctive behavior is good, and I'd be interested to see how many
> others have tried it without thinking.  Looking at the right-click
> context menu of a normal directory for me shows the following:
> 
> Open
> Open in New Window
> Add Folder to Shortcuts
> Copy File
> Cut File
> Delete File
> Paste Files into Folder
> Rename
> Open Terminal Here
> Properties
> 
> You knew that, you put it there, but first let's observe the ones that I
> think we can all agree don't make sense:
> 
> Cut
> Delete
> Rename
> 
> These would be confusing, and I don't think anybody would really use
> them.  

yeah

> Not to mention the hacks that I imagine would be required.  



> Now
> let's observe how each one of the others could be used as compared to
> the main view.


> Open: Pointless, all we have to do is click, right?  All we have to do
> is double-click the icon, same thing.  Actually, this brings up an
> earnest question, why is this here in the main view?  I'm sure there's a
> good reason; I just don't know what it is.

it's just common to do so, and it's nice to have all the possible
actions (even the obvious) in the menu.

> 
> Open in New Window: As you said this one is the most promising.  There
> isn't another way to do this here AFAIK.  Please correct.
> 

> Add Folder to Shortcuts: We can drag them right now, why do we need
> this?  Umm, same with Icon view.  Not everyone knows you can drag it.

Not everyone can use a mouse to drag&drop (or _has_ a mouse, for that
matter - think touchscreen).

> Paste Files into Folder: This would be useful for the pathbar buttons
> the same way it is for the main view.

Hmm, if you think it's good to paste into somewhere you currently cannot
see, okay.

btw: I never got why cut+copy+paste in file managers is as bad as it is
(I can imagine why they are implemented the way they are, but please...
if it doesn't work as a metapher, don't use the metapher and call it
"fooize" and "barize" instead).

Like:

Folder A
  File A <-- cut this

delete folder A
goto folder B
paste
*bam*

> 
> Open Terminal Here: I understand that this is a custom action, and I
> also realize that there would be "environment" issues (not good wording,
> I think you know what I mean) putting custom actions into the pathbar. 
> In fact, custom actions in the pathbar sounds like a bad idea.  That
> said, if Open Terminal Here were in a pathbar context menu, I'd use it.

I'd say it fits for "Open Terminal", but not for a whole lot of other
custom actions...

> 
> Properties: I don't know if this is useful here.  I don't use the
> Properties dialog very often anyway, so I'm not really sure.  I can
> imagine that the permissions page could be an issue here, and I don't
> know if Gamin would be required to or could deal with it.

Not really useful.

> 
> So far the only thing I've wanted the pathbar context menus for is Open
> in New Window, and I'd be psyched to see it there.  

yeah... and middle-click to open a new window? :)

> Well, that and Open
> Terminal in New Window, but that's a different can of worms.  The other
> stuff, I dunno.  Lot's of stuff I don't know.  ^ is noob.  I feel that
> some things would be useful there for the same reasons they're useful
> elsewhere.  Anyway, I'll dig around some more so I can maybe approach
> understanding this.  Now that I look at it, the code is equally
> impressive as the result.

cheers,
  Danny