headers
Keith Marshall | 20 Apr 2012 22:27
Picon

RFC: setting mingw-get options within profile.xml

I'm thinking primarily of options such as --desktop and --start-menu,
(added in mingw-get-0.5), for which users may wish to establish their
own preferred default settings.  To accommodate this, I propose to add
handling for a <preferences>...</preferences> section in profile.xml

The implementation will ensure that any option specified on the command
line will override a default setting in profile.xml

I'd welcome your thoughts on preferred syntax for the XML; which of the
following would you prefer?

  <preferences>
    <set option="desktop" class="all-users" />
    ...
  </preferences>

or

  <preferences>
    <option name="desktop" value="all-users" />
    ...
  </preferences>

or some alternative tag/attribute combination, conveying the concept?

--

-- 
Regards,
Keith.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Earnie Boyd | 21 Apr 2012 18:17
Picon

Re: RFC: setting mingw-get options within profile.xml

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Keith Marshall
<keithmarshall <at> users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> I'm thinking primarily of options such as --desktop and --start-menu,
> (added in mingw-get-0.5), for which users may wish to establish their
> own preferred default settings.  To accommodate this, I propose to add
> handling for a <preferences>...</preferences> section in profile.xml
>
> The implementation will ensure that any option specified on the command
> line will override a default setting in profile.xml
>
> I'd welcome your thoughts on preferred syntax for the XML; which of the
> following would you prefer?
>
>  <preferences>
>    <set option="desktop" class="all-users" />
>    ...
>  </preferences>

This sounds a bit natural.

>
> or
>
>  <preferences>
>    <option name="desktop" value="all-users" />
>    ...
>  </preferences>
>

or
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Keith Marshall | 21 Apr 2012 19:54
Picon

Re: RFC: setting mingw-get options within profile.xml

On 21/04/12 17:17, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Keith Marshall
> <keithmarshall@...> wrote:
>> I'm thinking primarily of options such as --desktop and --start-menu,
>> (added in mingw-get-0.5), for which users may wish to establish their
>> own preferred default settings.  To accommodate this, I propose to add
>> handling for a <preferences>...</preferences> section in profile.xml
>>
>> The implementation will ensure that any option specified on the command
>> line will override a default setting in profile.xml
>>
>> I'd welcome your thoughts on preferred syntax for the XML; which of the
>> following would you prefer?
>>
>>  <preferences>
>>    <set option="desktop" class="all-users" />
>>    ...
>>  </preferences>
> 
> This sounds a bit natural.

Which would be okay, right?  Or did you mean unnatural?

>> or
>>
>>  <preferences>
>>    <option name="desktop" value="all-users" />
>>    ...
>>  </preferences>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Earnie Boyd | 23 Apr 2012 13:47
Picon

Re: RFC: setting mingw-get options within profile.xml

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 21/04/12 17:17, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Keith Marshall
>> <keithmarshall <at> users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>> I'm thinking primarily of options such as --desktop and --start-menu,
>>> (added in mingw-get-0.5), for which users may wish to establish their
>>> own preferred default settings.  To accommodate this, I propose to add
>>> handling for a <preferences>...</preferences> section in profile.xml
>>>
>>> The implementation will ensure that any option specified on the command
>>> line will override a default setting in profile.xml
>>>
>>> I'd welcome your thoughts on preferred syntax for the XML; which of the
>>> following would you prefer?
>>>
>>>  <preferences>
>>>    <set option="desktop" class="all-users" />
>>>    ...
>>>  </preferences>
>>
>> This sounds a bit natural.
>
> Which would be okay, right?  Or did you mean unnatural?
>

Yes, I meant okay.

>>> or
>>>
>>>  <preferences>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Charles Wilson | 26 Apr 2012 23:42
Picon

Re: RFC: setting mingw-get options within profile.xml

On 4/21/2012 1:54 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> Having played a bit with implementation, I'm now leaning toward:
> 
>   <preferences>
>     <enable option="desktop" [value="all-users"] />
>     <enable option="start-menu" [value="all-users"] />
>     ...
>   </preferences>
> 
> or maybe:
> 
>   <preferences>
>     <enable option="desktop" [preferences="all-users"] />
>     <enable option="start-menu" [preferences="all-users"] />
>     ...
>   </preferences>
> 
> where the general form of the "enable" tag would be:
> 
>   <enable option="option-name" [preferences="attribute[,...]] />

Of the four proposed syntaxes, I prefer #2, in Keith's original RFC:

  <preferences>
    <option name="desktop" value="all-users" />
    ...
  </preferences>

It clearly represents the intent: the user has certain preferences. Some
of those are "options" which have a "name" and "value(s)". There may be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Keith Marshall | 28 Apr 2012 05:23
Picon

Re: RFC: setting mingw-get options within profile.xml

On 26/04/12 22:42, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Of the four proposed syntaxes, I prefer #2, in Keith's original RFC:
> 
>   <preferences>
>     <option name="desktop" value="all-users" />
>     ...
>   </preferences>
> 
> It clearly represents the intent: the user has certain preferences. Some
> of those are "options" which have a "name" and "value(s)".

That was my initial preference too, but what if there is no value?

  <preferences>
    <option name="desktop" />
    ...
  </preferences>

vs.

  <preferences>
    <enable option="desktop" />
    ...
  </preferences>

when the intent is to create desktop shortcuts for current user only,
rather than for all users?  It's trivially easy to implement it one way
or the other, but I definitely want only one.  On balance, I think I
still prefer the former; just thinking aloud, in an effort to convince
myself that it's no less logical than the latter.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane