"Ok right away I see your problem. Does Visual Studio generates as a new file name every time? And it's not a web site so you don't even have a domain correct?"
I have a local DNS entry so i am hitting a consistant domain name, www.oursite.com.local, which just points to 127.0.0.1 And studio opens up a new browser window, not a new file name "Just to help the communications, we would not call that "up disabled". Rather we would say "closed" (because you have no UI) and "suspended" because the icon is gray. " You can call it what you want, i call it "not running right away and watching net traffic and logging to the console"... "If you had ever done this in the past for that URL, Firebug would already be active. " No, no it wouldn't if it was a new browser window "I like "undock" but we call it "detach". If you had been detached before, you would stay detached" OK, "detached", my bad.... again, this doesn't happen for new browser windows "From what I can see in your information so far, the issue here is that Visual Studio is generating file name" As mentioned above, you do not have this correctly... Studio opens up a new browser window..... and look, you're not understanding what the core of the issue: - When a new browser window opens up on my local site here (or any site i "white list" like 1.3 allowed), i would like Firebug to be running/watching/enabled/activated/whatever-other-term-goes-here, and not have to go through clicking, detaching, and dragging stuff out of my way on a constant basis "So it's not possible to anticipate all the cases" But you guys already have! It's called "the way 1.3 worked".. if you just combined the two, you'd probably cover 98% of the use cases "As a practical matter, I am personally not going to re-work the activation mode" I haven't seen one person say scrap it and start over, we're looking for a layer on top that when the decision is made by Firebug: "Am I activated?", that it checks a user-defined list of domain names to be part of the decision... if it's starting up for the first time, check the list to start activated sir_brizz's post above this one makes the point just like I am trying to make: "This way I never had to wonder if, for example, Firebug was running on ANY of my development sites (all on the same domain). With only slight modifications, this activation model could have easily been made to work like 1.2 for users who were interested. After one moment of annoyance, I could have all of my sites functioning with Firebug with NO ACTION from me" On Jul 1, 7:36 am, Jan Odvarko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Someone of the Firebug team has already totally blown off this being a > > design issue with the comment > > "3) We can't satisfied everybody." > > Yes, that was me. > > I definitely didn't want to blow off the discussion and I believe I am > one of those who appreciate and listens to any (even negative) > feedback that leads to a better solution. I don't think the post was > well understood so, let me explain again. > > The message I wanted to send proposes support for alternative > solutions using extensions - and Firebug is strong in the area of > extensibility. > > I believe that the basic activation model built-in Firebug should be > primarily easy-to-use and cover majority of use cases. Consequently, > the model should be extensible enough so, it's possible to append any > new activation features/logic (through extensions) that support other > work-flows and/or new features like white/black lists, etc. > > This approach can also encourage extension developers to create > extensions and propose/show better implementation of the activation > model UI. Note that there are already Activation APIs in place and I > am happy to get any feedback how to improve them. > > Just to point out my gut feelings. I still think there is no universal > solution (based on all feedback collected over the time) that would > match every-bodies needs - or at least we haven't been successful with > discovering it. It was me who wrote > the:http://www.softwareishard.com/blog/firebug/how-to-enable-and-disable-... > post and as you could see there was also a lot's of negative feedback. > So, this is why I said (#3). > > Honza --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
