Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:28:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: icons in executables - another thought... Message-ID: <199904290028.UAA18577@lakes.dignus.com> In-Reply-To: <199904282331.RAA11927@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Putting icons in the executable itself is pretty stupid -- it's a single > > > instance of something that a window manager can use, and there are much > > > less-invasive ways of doing the same thing. > > > > What's invasive about it? > > The fact that the user may not like the icon you've chosen to use due to > many criteria, including size, # of colors, transparency, 2D/3D, etc... > > So, do we embed every icon the user may want to use inside the > executable to meet everyone's needs, or do we find an alternative > location such that the user can use any icon it finds appropriate. This > also allows for such things as 'themes', whereby I can change the > behavior of my system if the location of the icons are in a centralized > place by replacing the contents with a similar layout with different > icons. > > > > Nate > Yes... and coupled with the previous mutli-user argument... what if user #1 wants foo.xpm to be associated with /bin/rm, but user #2 wants bar.xpm associated with /bin/rm. Seems like, in that environment - the icon doesn't belong in the executable... But - what could go in the executable is an "icon class" (indirection to the rescue again.) Then, the window manager could associate a default (or user-defined) icon with the class... or it could get sophisticated and associate a name with a particular executable. Or - we could go the "shortcut" route... and have the window manager manage "shortcuts" (which would basically be files of a window-manager defined format, or perhaps a public format that many window managers use). Then, the information is associated with the "shortcut", e.g. executable name, arguments and icon. This route 1) Would seem to solve the problem (at least as good as Windows does) 2) Doesn't globally embed "stuff" in executables. 3) Can be used by any window manager (if the file format, i.e. "interface" is designed up-front and made public.) 4) Operates on just about any UNIX, ELF or not. 5) If the interface is extensible - other info can be added to the "shortcut" (as several people have mentioned) 6) The OS could even be extended to be able to exec() shortcuts by simply starting them with #!/bin/shortcut-exec - Thoughts? - - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904290028.UAA18577>