Xfce advanced settings plugin/module

[Nikolas Arend]

Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:43:11 +0200, Nikolas Arend wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> there was a thread recently (which unfortunately took a kind of
>> unlucky turn) about the inclusion of certain "hidden" options into
>> the xfdesktop mcs plugin. The "over-configurability" of xfce
>> components - i.e. making all possible options available by UI - was
>> always a delicate subject. In said thread Brian mentioned that there
>> could be something like the tweakUI plugin Olivier wrote for xfwm4,
>> just for all hidden options and all apps. That way, the "core"
>> settings manager would stay clear and not overloaded, but users can
>> mess around with additional stuff if they like.
>>     
>
> I dislike the separation of "normal" and "advanced" features/options,
> mainly due to one reason: As soon as you're using software on a daily
> basis (or at least, use it regularly enough), "advanced" becomes
> "normal". 
>
>   

If it's just the name, then it could be relabeled to something else. If 
you mean that you would be using those "advanced" options regularly once 
they're there, then to me it looks like they proof actually useful. But 
maybe I misunderstood you here?

> Personally, I don't see the need to split up MCS plugins in order to
> create an "advanced" options dialog. None of the plugins are really
> bloated, I think. Some may need an overhaul of the user interface, but
> that's it.
>
>   

No, they're not, but this is not about the current mcs plugins but about 
a way to deal with those "hidden options". But I see you come to that now...

> In addition, I'd like to comment on hidden options. They are often used
> to add features while avoiding to blow up the user interface (or not
> having to work on it because it takes too much time). As hidden options
> always mean browsing docs, asking (and answering!) questions about them
> on mailing lists and so on, I don't think they're good for anything.
> In the end, they don't save any of the developer's valuable time and
> sometimes, they just unveil design problems.
>
> Now, where was I? Right, I wanted to close with a statement against
> hidden options. Instead, we should try to use good defaults wherever
> possible (Benny did a good job with Thunar) and maybe think about
> polishing possibly affected settings plugins.
>
>   

Well, if there were no hidden options, such a thing like an advanced 
settings tool would of course be futile (since there's nothing else to 
configure). So if the xfce team decides to, if possible, avoid or 
actually de-implement such hidden settings, I agree that writing a tool 
to cover them now is not a good idea.

Another path would be - I think that's what you meant above - to split 
up the options into a "base goup" and an "advanced group" (like 
enlightenment DR17 does it) and have no more hidden options (as they 
exist now) at all.
But if something like "advanced" settings is not wanted, sane (but 
static) defaults are, as you said, the alternative.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Regards,   Nick.