weft 0.4

weft 0.4

[Frank Fesevur]

Hi,

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

Regards,
Frank

Re: weft 0.4

[Christopher Faylor]

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

Sorry, but the lack of response probably means that no one is interested
in your package.  That doesn't bode well for your getting the votes required
for it to be included in the distribution.

cgf

Re: weft 0.4

[Frank Fesevur]

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
> 
> Sorry, but the lack of response probably means that no one is interested
> in your package.  That doesn't bode well for your getting the votes required
> for it to be included in the distribution.

I was afraid someone was gonna say that ;-)

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.

We install weft on every pc/server we need cygwin on. As I wrote in my 
readme, we use a lot of bash scripts on our Windows servers and often 
just by double clicking them in the Explorer.

Regards,
Frank

Re: weft 0.4

[Charles Wilson]

Frank Fesevur wrote:
> 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.

I think the problem is "sample bias". Most of the cygwin maintainers 
seem (to me) to be mostly focused on "getting unix stuff that I like to 
work on the bass-ackward platform called Windows".

I spend most of my "cygwin" time in a bash shell.  I've got oodles of 
scripts to automate things.  And I use either vi or xemacs to edit.

The only time I double-click something is (a) when I'm not "cygwinning" 
-- e.g. I'm using "regular windows" apps, or (b) cygwin setup.exe (c) my 
shortcuts to rxvt and the xserver.  I don't use chere.

So IMO *this audience* isn't very interested in 
[chere|weft|other-windows-integration].  That doesn't mean that the 
universe of cygwin users who are NOT maintainers have similar biases.

I'll try to review your package this weekend, and will report back here.

--
Chuck

Re: weft 0.4

[Oliver Wienand]

> We install weft on every pc/server we need cygwin on. As I wrote in my 
> readme, we use a lot of bash scripts on our Windows servers and often 
> just by double clicking them in the Explorer.

I am interested in this package. But I just came back from a long trip 
and have to catch up with things here. Next week I will look into the 
package.

... Oliver

Re: weft 0.4

[Dave]

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

Re: weft 0.4

[Frank Fesevur]

At 30-10-2006 18:12, Dave wrote:
> 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.

There were two main reasons for me to choose for C++:
- I know I'm better with C++ then with bash scripts (it's always good to 
know your own limitations ;-)
- When I saw the quoting nightmare (as you say in your own comment) you 
had to get the shell for the 'passwd', I knew when I write directly to 
the registry it would less of a problem.

> 2. You have hardcoded the bash invocation line.

Sorry, but I don't understand it. I think it is because English is not 
my native tongue, but what do you mean with "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.

The only reason I didn't add other shells yet, is because I don't have 
any experience with them. When you look at the code you see in 
SetShell() other shells can be added without much problems.

>   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.

It is no problem to start a script when spaces in the filename. I just 
tested and indeed it does not work when the script is on 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.

You got a point.

> 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).

I don't know if many would want to do this with a cygwin app, but then 
again, many most people here in cygwin-apps don't feel the need to start 
a script from the Explorer.

But I don't see the problem of this. It goes for almost any package that 
you need to recompile to add functions. And why not have an option to 
specify a path the start when you add an extension.

> 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.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

> 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.

But when I look at the reactions I got IRL and the fact that is has been 
discussed on the lists before, I think enough people do like it. I know 
the 0.4 version is not yet a general releasable version. It does not 
have that version number for nothing ;-)

> 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.

I have looked through the archive before I started coding. I found the 
message I mentioned in my readme, but I missed that one :-(

I don't mind to drop weft and help to make the new package. My reason to 
write is, was to have the functionality. It doesn't have to be weft if 
there is another/better way to do it.

I will definitely take a closer look at your code.

Just two minor remarks. I'm personally not that much a fan of tray 
icons. I already have way too much on my machine. And I don't think .xpi 
is a good extension as it is already used for Mozilla extensions.

Regards,
Frank

Re: weft 0.4

[Dave]

Frank Fesevur wrote:
> At 30-10-2006 18:12, Dave wrote:
>> Comments on the package itself:
>> 2. You have hardcoded the bash invocation line.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't understand it. I think it is because English is not
> my native tongue, but what do you mean with "bash invocation line"?

I meant the string you put into the registry to call 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.
> 
> It is no problem to start a script when spaces in the filename. I just
> tested and indeed it does not work when the script is on shares.

Thanks for the clarification - I didn't get a chance to run weft.

>> 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.
> 
> Sounds like a good idea to me.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I don't mind to drop weft and help to make the new package. My reason to
> write is, was to have the functionality. It doesn't have to be weft if
> there is another/better way to do it.
> 
> I will definitely take a closer look at your code.

Since I posted it, I've a few minor modifications - but it should be
usable for simple cases. As posted it retains some of th drawbacks I
highlighted in weft, but ther is a clear path to address most of the issues.

I look forward to hearing your comments on it.  In the meantime, I'll
see if I can find time to work on it, and maybe post an update/actual ITP.

Dave.