On Sep 22, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Bob Williams wrote:
On Sep 22, 2006, at 7:15, Warren Michelsen wrote:
I very often edit files right on my server and it's nice that opening
a file on my server is (or rather was) almost transparent to the user
-- almost like opening the file locally. This is what made the ftp
feature so nice.
What's so different about having an Interarchy (or whatever) window
always open and a BBEdit FTP browser always open? Either way, you just
click into it, select a file, and perform some operation.
No difference; I don't like either of them. I don't want to have to go
through an FTP browser window — either in Interarchy or BBEdit — to
simply open a file for editing.
I strongly prefer the old behavior:
- command-shift-o to open a connection window
- "Enter" to connect
- command-g go go to the directory I want
- keyboard or arrows to select the file
- enter to open the file.
Done. Simple and efficient.
Now (unless I'm missing something), in 8.5:
- command-shift-o to open the FTP browser window
- either:
- tab to the Server field
- type in the server name or IP address
- tab to the "User" field
- type in the user name
- tab to the "Password" field
- type in a password
- or
- use the mouse and click on "Bookmarks" to select a server
- use the mouse to click on "Connect"
- use the mouse to click on "Go to"
- keyboard or arrows to select the file
- enter to open the file.
Done. With 8.5, I either have to use a lot more keystrokes or — worse —
switch to the mouse. Inefficient and annoying.
In the meantime, if I spend too long in the file and don't work in the
FTP browser window often enough, my server closes the connection due to
inactivity and, even though the FTP browser window appears to be
connected, it is, in fact, not and I have to then use the mouse to
click "Disconnect" then "Connect" to regain my connection to the
server.
I edit files on remote servers all day long. This change in
functionality makes my workflow harder rather than easier.
You're suggestion is that I spend more money to buy another program
that has a lot more features but that doesn't appear to replace the
functionality that was lost. That's not really a solution.
I, too, would like to see something similar to the previous, efficient
functionality restored.
James
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a feature request? Not sure the software's working correctly?
If so, please send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not to the list.
List FAQ: <http://www.barebones.com/support/lists/bbedit_talk.shtml>
List archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/BBEditTalk.lasso>
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
