From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Apr 28 17:28:34 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686E615122
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rivers@dignus.com)
Received: from dignus.com (ponds.vnet.net [166.82.177.48])
	by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA09634
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lakes.dignus.com (lakes.dignus.com [10.0.0.3])
	by dignus.com (8.9.2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA33200
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:28:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from rivers@localhost) by lakes.dignus.com (8.9.2/8.6.9) id UAA18577 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:28:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:28:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>
Message-Id: <199904290028.UAA18577@lakes.dignus.com>
To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: icons in executables - another thought...
In-Reply-To: <199904282331.RAA11927@mt.sri.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> 
> > > 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