On 6/19/2011 11:58 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
On 20/06/2011, at 4:33 PM, BGB wrote:
For example, when web programming on a specific web app, I use a web browser, a text editor, a database
management program, a command line, and a couple other tools. It'd be nice to be able to "fit these
tools together" into a pseudo-app and then build "documents" for this pseudo-app... that were
accessible within the pseudo-app (ie not the file system) to use Apple's idea, and that could simply do all
the things I generally need to do... (there are only a few "tasks" I generally do and none of them
correlate directly into any one particular application).
I love the way I edit text in my one particular text editor. Why do I have to
use a different editor to edit my email text? lol... it makes little sense.
well, mostly I am using Windows Explorer and the shell (both CMD and Bash) for managing
things on Windows, and this setup works "adequately".
admittedly, I am not entirely sure how the idea you are describing will work,
so maybe it can be described in more detail? (like, what parts it may contain
and how they may fit together...).
Perhaps you might take a look at Panic's Coda
http://www.panic.com/coda/
This is *one instance* of what I'm talking about generally... it does for most
web developers what I was describing... but I'm talking about having a more
modular approach in that you should be able to build a tool that incorporates
other things, too (for example, I might decide I want a particular
colour-picker in there, or a specific interactive language reference or API
reference, or perhaps I'd like to have some form of rudimentary image editing,
because I do that in my work).
You get me?
errm, the modular part sort of sounds like what OLE and COM were meant
to be (although presumably without all the MS or the suck, and ideally
without big security holes like putting virus-laden ActiveX controls in
emails...).
the linked-to site sort of sounds like an IDE or something...
I am not certain I follow how this would get rid of file-systems though...
I am not aware of any good alternative to the filesystem which is
generally better than the filesystem (can effectively manage huge
numbers of files and multiple TB of disk space, can effectively
multiplex between a large number of apps, and still is accessible to
mere humans, ...).
also, the vast majority of existing software would break if no FS were
available.
although, there are things which are lacking with traditional OS-level
filesystems:
ability to have localized and customized filesystems (usually done via
app-local VFS's);
ability to easily sandbox or virtualize the filesystem (apart from
fairly heavy-handed/costly mechanisms, such as chroot);
ability to see into app-internal data (can be handled via "FUSE" on
Linux, but AFAIK there is no good analogue for Windows);
generally require jerkoff to access network resources (although GVFS
does this, but the Linux VFS requires mounts, and Windows requires
"mount as drive letter" or using Win32 API calls to be able to access
UNC files, which for who-knows-what-reason don't seem to work with
fopen/fclose or open/close last I checked, and instead require using
OpenFile or such...);
...
sadly, the least nasty (IMO) option is essentially to just have ones'
program provide and use its own VFS internally...
actually, Steam also does this (for one who wants their apps to work
with GCF files) but sadly the process of connecting to the Steam VFS is
... nasty...
hence, even then, one still needs their own VFS...
or such...
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
