[Lazarus] Lazarus config woes
lazarus at mfriebe.de
Sat Apr 2 10:39:05 CEST 2011
On 02/04/2011 00:45, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
> Martin schrieb:
>>> If a global config is found, but is invalid/incompatible, a local
>>> config should be created.
>> sounds good at first, but is actually worse.
>> Because this behaviour is unpredictable from the end users view.
> Unpredictable why?
Because as I wrote a line further down:
"Rules for "invalid/incompatible" may be complex. They may not always
apply, even if the user hopes for. "
Also I wrote "from the end users view. "
Someone knowning all the "rules" can predict, if the current config is
"invalid/incompatible" or not.
But a "normal"/"les experienced" end user will not be able to predict
that, for him it will look random what happens.
Note: I never said the current solution was perfect. But it doesn't need
replacement by something that isn't any better.
> Currently the results are unpredictable, when the IDE finds a config
> unusable, or does not find out, and produces consequential errors :-(
apparently it now comes up with one single setup dialog...
>> Rules for "invalid/incompatible" may be complex. They may not always
>> apply, even if the user hopes for.
>> In fact they may change, later. 2 installations that have shared the
>> global conf for a long time, may become "invalid/incompatible" at
>> some point (maybe only for a short time) => but then all the sudden
>> one of them has a conf in the exe-dir => not good at all.
> It's up to the inventors/maintainers of the config thingy, to provide
> checks and solutions. I only can assist in improving the current state.
> E.g. split the config into an always compatible (user preferences),
> and an installation specific part. This will allow to retain as much
> of the settings as possible, in case of problems somewhere else. Next
> offer the user a menu item, to save the config into the Lazarus
> directory (current scp), and later load from that location whatever
> config files are found there, before loading missing files from other
splitting may be a good idea. but is a new topic
>>> The requirement for an explicit -pcp can be reduced to the single
>>> invocation, that shall create a new config. This job also could
>>> become a menu option, or an option button in the IDE settings
>>> dialog. Why press the user to specify a new pcp at the commandline,
>>> when the config always is created by the started IDE?
>> the requirement to create a script, is a single invocation too...
>> where is the difference?
>> a profile manager, selectable from menu, could create this script for
>> you (or the windows shortcut). Again where is the difference?
> The difference is, what the user must know about the script. When the
> IDE creates it, the user only has to know about the invocation of the
> script (filename or desktop icon), not about the contents of that script.
Sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Isn't that the idea of a script,
just run it?
>> btw , whith config in the exe dir => it can get really fuzzy.
>> if you have a link (or shortcut) to your exe, and there is config in
>> the real exe-dir, and the link-dir... which one to take?
> Then it's up to the creator of that link, to make it work as it should.
That wasn't the question. How should it?
> Windos "links" (desktop shortcuts) allow to specify the working
> directory, so it's up to the creator of the link to fill in that
> information. Console users on any system may create an equivalent
> script, and create links to that script instead of to the executable.
Ok, "creator"? The end user, or the lazarus developper?
if the end user, then that is the same as --pcp, or scripts, the user
has to set it up onc
if the laz-developer, then tyes, it is easy to implement some rule, but
the bigger the set of overall rules grows, the more confusing for the
More information about the Lazarus