You are here

Home » Forums » Development Forums » Portable App Development

John, regarding the INIs...

5 posts / 0 new
Topic locked
Last post
August 17, 2006 - 2:47pm
#1
Bruce Pascoe
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 5 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-15 16:14
John, regarding the INIs...

@ John T. Haller
Please don't remove INI support. No offense, but I can't stand your directory layout ("App"... igh. I hate abbreviations), so I've created my own. If you take out the INI support, I'll have to revert to the standard layout. *shudder* I may actually stop updating the launchers if it meant I'd lose INI support.

Another problem with the standard layout is that it puts each of the launchers in a separate directory. You can't really combine various App/Data directories into single folders or you'd probably end up with file/folder name conflicts. I like having all my launchers in a single directory for easy access, which the INIs allow me to do.

Another thing the INIs allow is disabling the splash screen. I personally hate them, so I disable them on all the Portable Apps I use. They're not really much use over a slow USB connection, either, as the splash screen tends to disappear before the app has completely started (FFP is notorious for this), defeating its own purpose. But I digress.

Anyway, please reconsider removing INI support. The INIs are quite useful for me. If anything, you should be requiring the INIs, not removing them altogether. Plus, without an INI, there'd be no way to set the RunLocally option, now would there? Wink Or even the LocalHomepage option... or the AllowMultipleInstances option... gee, I could go on for days. I won't though. I'll spare you from that fate. :lol:

Top
August 17, 2006 - 2:53pm
John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 56 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Re-read the whole post I made

Re-read my original post. I said I was only considering it, but that I'd probably keep it and ditch the alternate directories. (Don't make it sound worse than it is for people that are just tuning in... there's no need to sensationalize.) Even if I ditched INI layout options, I'd still include the ability to disable splashes, set defaulthomepage, etc. The INI for that would be included by default in the default directory structures. It would probably be right alongside the launcher, in which case I'd ditch default directories entirely. So, perhaps you misunderstood what I'm thinking of doing.

The only thing I'm trying to do is create a dialog around simplifying all the launchers in general. And the paths I'm considering are:

1. Ditch the current INI incarnations and just support the default directory layout. Within the Data directory, have an INI for settings like disabling the splash screen, setting a homepage, runlocal, etc.

2. Same as #1 but continue to support alternate directory layouts using an INI alongside the current defaults.

3. Just use an INI next to the launcher and not use any default directory layouts at all. (although I would need to have it actually contained elsewhere or created on first run if it didn't exist to allow the in-place upgrade abilities)

Does that make more sense now? At no point did I suggest no options.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Top
August 17, 2006 - 4:42pm
(Reply to #2)
Bruce Pascoe
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 5 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-15 16:14
...

I wasn't trying to sensationalize. This is exactly how I interpreted it. As you said: "I've been debating ditching the INIs and just keeping the apps in the new standard layouts." This comment seemed to suggest to me that you would no longer support any INIs at all. Wouldn't you agree that said comment is pretty easy to misconstrue?

At any rate, I really like option #3, and it's the route I took when I made the C++ launcher. Of course, given that the Win32 API supports default values for INI reads and in C++ I don't have to have goto's all over the place, implementing no-INI operation would have been cake anyway. But I digress. A default directory layout is nice for newbies so they don't have to think about it too much about it, but forcing it on someone who doesn't like it is a bit much, especially when, unlike an installed app, you're going to be seeing those directories every time you run the launcher (unless you use PStart, which I don't).

-
< ExplosivePrincess 1.5 Atomic Bomb Edition >
warning: keep explosiveprincess away from children

Top
August 17, 2006 - 4:51pm
(Reply to #3)
John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 56 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Thought it was obvious

I thought it was obvious what I meant... otherwise why did I do all this extra work to enable CD modes for every single app to throw it away a week/month later... but I digress. And that's the reason why I was going to start a new thread posing it as a question to the community rather than make a statement on this is what should/will happen. But you beat me to the punch. Blum Perhaps I will start a new thread anyway framing the possible options and the cost/benefit of each one and seeking input.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Top
August 17, 2006 - 10:19pm
(Reply to #4)
Bruce Pascoe
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 5 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-15 16:14
...

Err... mainly because you told me to create a new thread? Wink

Anyway, never assume that something is obvious. What's obvious to you might not be obvious to me, and vice versa. People think differently. Remember: assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME. And as you can see, it did. Blum

-
< ExplosivePrincess 1.5 Atomic Bomb Edition >
warning: keep explosiveprincess away from children

Top
Topic locked