Hi,
--- Mike Hearn mh@codeweavers.com wrote:
- Add a wineshell process to stand in for Explorer
- Rewrite system tray code to be standards compliant
Maybe we should just go ahead and call it explorer in case you plan on adding stuff later on or adapting parts of ReactOS explorer.
Thanks Steven
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Steven Edwards wrote:
Maybe we should just go ahead and call it explorer in case you plan on adding stuff later on or adapting parts of ReactOS explorer.
No, I think that'd be misleading. It doesn't explore stuff and never will, and it may also do other things in future that Explorer doesn't. It's a rough analogue of Explorer in the same way that the wineserver is a bit like the Windows kernel.
Mike Hearn mike@navi.cx writes:
No, I think that'd be misleading. It doesn't explore stuff and never will, and it may also do other things in future that Explorer doesn't. It's a rough analogue of Explorer in the same way that the wineserver is a bit like the Windows kernel.
We will sooner or later need an Explorer clone, if only for desktop mode, and it seems to me it is exactly the right place for the systray code.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
We will sooner or later need an Explorer clone, if only for desktop mode, and it seems to me it is exactly the right place for the systray code.
If by explorer you mean things like the taskbar then yes, maybe once the winedesktop works gets in (I wonder what happened to that) we'll need some kind of task switcher/shell program. I don't think we need an entire file browser - there is winefile but who uses it? What is it for? There are native file browsers that work well.
Calling it Explorer would imply that it's supposed to do everything Windows explorer does, which seems a bit dubious to me. It'd be like calling the wineserver the winekernel.
thanks -mike
Mike Hearn mike@navi.cx writes:
If by explorer you mean things like the taskbar then yes, maybe once the winedesktop works gets in (I wonder what happened to that) we'll need some kind of task switcher/shell program. I don't think we need an entire file browser - there is winefile but who uses it? What is it for? There are native file browsers that work well.
That's not the reason, the reason is that there are apps that depend on Explorer. It's for the same reason we have Notepad even though there are better native editors.
Calling it Explorer would imply that it's supposed to do everything Windows explorer does, which seems a bit dubious to me. It'd be like calling the wineserver the winekernel.
No, I don't see why it implies that it has to do everything the Windows one does, but it has to do everything that some apps depend on.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Calling it Explorer would imply that it's supposed to do everything Windows explorer does, which seems a bit dubious to me. It'd be like calling the wineserver the winekernel.
No, I don't see why it implies that it has to do everything the Windows one does, but it has to do everything that some apps depend on.
Though, if we would want to support shell extensions, I don't see how we could effectively do it without having it do everything the native explorer does....
Shachar
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Though, if we would want to support shell extensions, I don't see how we could effectively do it without having it do everything the native explorer does....
That would be the other reason. But, I think it makes more sense to try and bridge shell extensions to Nautilus/Konqueror rather than reimplement Explorer-the-file-manager. At least, that's what I'd try first.
Flip side is I'm not aware of any shell extensions people want to run on Wine, at least, not yet ...
Mike Hearn wrote:
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Though, if we would want to support shell extensions, I don't see how we could effectively do it without having it do everything the native explorer does....
That would be the other reason. But, I think it makes more sense to try and bridge shell extensions to Nautilus/Konqueror rather than reimplement Explorer-the-file-manager. At least, that's what I'd try first.
Flip side is I'm not aware of any shell extensions people want to run on Wine, at least, not yet ...
I'd love to get my digital camera syncing on Linux (Mustek). It uses a shell extension. Good enough reason for you? :-)
Shachar
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 20:16 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'd love to get my digital camera syncing on Linux (Mustek). It uses a shell extension. Good enough reason for you? :-)
Is a shell extension really the only way you can access the camera? That's pretty poor UI design if so (imho :).
What desktop do you use, if any? Maybe we can add bridging shell extensions to the list of fun tasks.
thanks -mike
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 20:16 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'd love to get my digital camera syncing on Linux (Mustek). It uses a shell extension. Good enough reason for you? :-)
Is a shell extension really the only way you can access the camera? That's pretty poor UI design if so (imho :).
I no choice but to agree. It came in cheap, and I don't heavily rely on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have gone for anything short of a camera that acts as a USB storage device.
What desktop do you use, if any?
KDE.
Maybe we can add bridging shell extensions to the list of fun tasks.
Hmm. Like I said in an earlier email, a shell extension (including a complete hand-coded OLE server) was my first Windows program ever. Since then (1996), however, I have done a lot of other stuff, and have blissfully wiped out most of the knowledge in that area. If I win the lottery (or enough people decide that I'm worthy of an award....), I /may/ pick something like that up. Until then, however, don't count on me. Just today I noticed that an edit control partial update optimization totally breaks BiDi display, so it's unlikely that my mainstream work will abate any time soon.
As for the camera, USB support has to work before we can do anything with that. It will probably be simpler to get kamera to support the MDC 3000.
If you reached this page through a search on the camera's support in Linux - just veer away from it. No optical zoom, all pictures taken relying mostly on the built-in flash overexpose. No reason to buy it unless you got it as a gift.
thanks -mike
Shachar
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
No, I don't see why it implies that it has to do everything the Windows one does,
Depends on whose perspective you're looking at if from. From a developer perspective, you are able to easily distinguish what invisible Explorer functions need to be replicated and which do not.
From a user perspective, Explorer means "the file manager", and that's all it means. They don't know that it provides shell functions like the taskbar and systray (and all the other cruft it provides) unless they happened to be into alternative shells like Litestep or DesktopX while using Windows-- but that's not very likely.
So if the Wine "Explorer" is going to be user-visible, it does imply that to some degree, because the user expectation is somewhat radically different from the developer expectation in this respect. From a developer perspective, the file management function is probably the least important of the Explorer functions (since file management can be replicated separately by many means, under both Windows and Linux, as noted), but to the user, it is the *only* function.
but it has to do everything that some apps depend on.
Well, yes, please ;-) .
Holly
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Holly Bostick -
Mike Hearn -
Shachar Shemesh -
Steven Edwards