Re: editor settings list

[jeroen <jeroen xs4all nl>]

Hi Dirk,

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Dirk Vangestel wrote:
> I think you're putting too much functionality in the
> editor. The things you put in 'display' are more
> suited to be put in an editor interface than the stuff
> you put in 'editor'. Putting too much functionality in
> the editor interface will severely limit the choice of
> editors (for example vi will have lots of problems
> implementing the stuff in display, let alone the stuff
> in editor).
> But that's just IMHO of course :)

I think you're still thinking about the "old" situation. The current
situation for properties is this:

- Use bonobo-conf (bonobo-config in GNOME 2.0) for settings
- Separate editor settings from the rest

Bonobo-conf allows you to put all your settings in the Bonobo component
itself and also to put the actual GUI for manipulating those settings in
there too! This is how it works: gIDE queries the editor component (in
this case scintilla) for the PropertyControl interface. With that interface, 
bonobo-config is able to create a settings dialog (bonobo-conf only
creates the dialog with notebook, all the actual contents comes from the
scintilla component).

When you modify any settings, bonobo-conf immediately notifies all
instances of the scintilla control that the setting has changed (you're
also supposed to be able use an "Apply" button, but how to do that is
currently unknown. So for know, all settings are in "instant-apply" mode).
The end result is that when you change a setting in gIDE and you also have
a nautilus window open browsing source code with scintilla, the setting
will also immediately take effect in nautilus.

Using this mechanism, you've separated the editor settings from gIDE.
Using bonobo, you were never able in the first place to predict which
component a user would use to edit source code.

AFAIK, there is also no Editor idl. Please correct me if there is.

I also think the other settings (plugin settings) can also be best done
using the PropertyControl interface.

Hope this clarifies things,

Jeroen

> I'd rather have a 'standard' properties page with
> essential features and 'advanced' properties page(s)
> whith differ per editor (so that there actually is a
> reason to support multiple editors... there's no use
> in offering anything but scintilla if you're requiring
> all editors to have the same features). The 'standard'
> properties could be shared between editors while the
> others would be editor specific.
> Otherwise you'd have to work with capabilities
> (inquire which functions are being implemented by a
> certain editor and present options for only those
> functions).
> 
> Dirk
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/