From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14455 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2006 17:12:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 14445 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2006 17:12:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:12:36 +0000 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so1037816ugd for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.221.6 with SMTP id t6mr4506794ugg; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.34.121? ( [62.3.253.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k2sm3097049ugf.2006.10.30.09.12.29; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:12:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45463278.2080406@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060818) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: weft 0.4 References: <453CF723.4030706@users.sourceforge.net> <20061025210002.GA21963@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <453FD916.6030709@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <453FD916.6030709@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dave X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 Frank Fesevur wrote: > At 25-10-2006 23:00, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 07:08:51PM +0200, Frank Fesevur wrote: >>> Two weeks ago I sent a message to this list, but there wasn't any >>> reply. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-10/msg00029.html > > But I find it a kind of strange that no one would be interested in it. > chere does similar things. It helps to integrate Cygwin and Windows. And > AFAICT, chere is received quite well. But no hard feelings. I wrote the > package, it fits my own needs. I thought that others could benefit from > it as well. As chere maintainer I've had this on my TODO list for review, apologies for the delay. Comments on the package itself: 1. You've created a C++ program that essentially is just writing to the registry. Have you considered scripting it instead? Then you can leave the registry handling to regtool. 2. You have hardcoded the bash invocation line. It took a while to get it right with chere. Issues that you'll find with the invocation you're using: a) won't work on scripts in network paths b) won't play with ash or tcsh. Not a problem now since you're only supporting bash. c) I don't think this plays well with spaces or '$' in a path (but I could be wrong). Note '$' is commonly found in MS hidden network shares. 3. You're starting a login shell for every script you want to run. Probably fine on a modern machine, but there's always someone trying to eke out a performance gain. More general: weft will manage invoking scripts (or programs) which do not require additional arguments directly from a particular shell. To add the ability to handle a type of extension that does not want to be executed by a shell (say for .pdf), the source of weft will need to be patched and recompiled (and run to add the handler). My feeling is that we need to have a single package which manages all the explorer extensions anybody may want to add. I don't think the package as proposed can easily be made to do this. Together with the fact that I've never felt the need to execute a script directly from Explorer, weft doesn't get my vote as it stands. I have a work in progress which could do the generic management of explorer extensions (see link below). As is typical, I haven't had time to perfect it - but by all means, have a look at what I've done and between us we might get this functionality into cygwin. Regards, Dave. Sentry/XPIntegrate proposal: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-05/msg00103.html