On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 15:21 +0800, JF Ding wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Alexander Larsson <
alexl redhat com>
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 14:55 +0800, JF Ding wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > +
> >
> <key>/schemas/apps/nautilus/preferences/daemon_enable</key>
> > +
> >
> <applyto>/apps/nautilus/preferences/daemon_enable</applyto>
> >
> > +#define
> > NAUTILUS_PREFERENCES_DAEMON_ENABLE
> > "preferences/daemon_enable"
> >
> > A better name would be "daemon_mode"
> >
> > +static gboolean allow_daemon = FALSE;
> >
> > Same here, call it "daemon_mode".
> >
> > About the variable names, including gconf key and the two
> new vars,
> > the name does be indicating the usage.
> > In fact, in my first design, the name of gconf key is
> "daemon_mode",
> > but I think it is not precise, because the key
> > is to indicate whether nautilus can run as a daemon. I
> rename it to
> > "daemon_enable".
> > The static global "allow_daemon", the same cause.
> > And the stack variable in main(), "daemon_mode" to be sync
> with
> > command line option "--daemon", its meaning
> > is whether it run in "daemon mode", which will not created
> desktop and
> > default window.
> > I hope this can be explained clearly. Of course I will
> rename them if
> > you cannot agree with the usage of them.
>
>
> Well, I disagree with all that because I think having the
> command line
> option at all is a bad idea. We should just have a gconf key.
>
> OK, I will following it. Just discard the command line option. But for
> the meaning
> of "daemon_mode", I feel it should stand for "only daemon without
> window" mode.
> So, should we think over the names?