Xfce advanced settings plugin/module

[Nikolas Arend]

Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 16:22:00 +0200, Nikolas Arend wrote:
>
>   
>> Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:43:11 +0200, Nikolas Arend wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>     
>
> I think you understood correctly, but missed my point. Hehe. The fact
> that advanced features are going to be used regularly by everyone using
> Xfce for more than just a few days proves that they are normal features
> like everything else is. Hence, the separation of advanced and normal
> features doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.
>   
Yes, but I think that there are frequently occasions when the opinion of 
the developer and the user about the usefulness of an option were quite 
different. (And I by no means intend to start a new discussion about 
whether or not the right to decide what gets implemented is with the 
developer. For me that is undoubtedly so). "Advanced options" could be a 
way of dealing with this (of course the option would have to be 
implemented then). But I'm not entirely sure myself, actually.

>  
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Err, isn't this what you suggested in your initial mail? No, I wouldn't
> split up options into groups. I'd rather optimize the existing MCS
> plugins and put graphical elements for hidden options there.
>
>   

The term "groups" was rather meant abstractly. They would all be options 
in that sense, but dealt with by different configuration UI's. When it 
would be done like that, I think the UI for dealing with the "advanced" 
options should be included in the core distribution, but nonetheless 
clearly distinguishable from the settings manager for the "basic" options.

But that was not what I proposed initially. I thought about a tool 
dealing with the now hidden options that is not necessarily a part of 
the core xfce but could be a separate project (like a goodie).


But, if there _would_ be s.th. like what I called "groups" of settings 
("advanced" and "basic") that are actually treated equally from the way 
they are implemented in the code, I think I would vote for two different 
configuration tools that are both part of the core distribution (like 
described above).

Hm, hope I made myself clear ;-)

Cheers,   Nick.