On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 09:02 -0500, Karoly Molnar wrote:
> Devan Goodwin wrote:
> > On 2/18/07, Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> - to have some common data for a group of accounts, such as the
> >> launcher (so you don't have to manually set up a browser launcher
> >> for all web accounts, or change every account when you change
> >> your browser), or the icon (to visualize the account type in the
> >> account list)
> > +1
> I can see what you are talking about and yes in some situation it can
> be helpful. I just can't come up with one. On the browser example I
> didn't think that a web account would need to contain a launcher
> field. I though it is a global setting of the URL field.
> Anyway I see that there is a need for this functionality even if I
> wouldn't use it.
Well, yeah, with web accounts you can just click the button (although
when using a launcher, via "Go to", it also copies the password to
But take for example FTP accounts. If you set up an FTP template using
gFTP as the launcher, create 20 FTP accounts, and then decide to change
your FTP client to lftp, you're going to have to manually change the
launcher for all 20 accounts. Same goes if you just want to add an extra
command-line option or something.
As for icons; if you create a web account template with a nice icon,
create 50 web accounts, and then find a much better icon you'd rather
use. You're either not going to bother changing the old accounts
(leading to inconsistency and confusion as you now have two different
icons for the same type of account), or you'll have to change each and
every one of the 50 accounts.
Both of these are quite serious usability issues, and I'd say these
alone are reason enough to keep a link between the accounts and the
> >> - to make template changes retroactively affect the accounts that
> >> belongs to them (for example, adding a field should add that
> >> field to all accounts created from the template, and changing the
> >> icon or launcher should change it for all accounts)
> > +1
> same as previous
> > I think breaking the relationship between the account types (or
> > templates) and the actual entries will make things much less
> > convenient. Modifying an existing account type (or a template) is
> > quite likely going to be something I would use, having to manually
> > recreate or alter the fields on every existing entry of that type
> > would not be pleasant.
> Please let me know a real life situation when you'd use this feature
> I'm really curious.
In this case; say you create a web template with the fields URL,
Username, and Password. After creating 30 accounts you find that alot of
sites ask for annoying stuff such as a control question, so you add a
field for this to the template. For new accounts, all is well. However,
when you'd like to go back and store this info for old accounts you find
you have to create the same field every time - quite annoying,
inconsistent, and confusing.
Or what if you included such a field when you created the template, but
when realizing that only a small number of sites actually need it, you
decide to remove it and instead add a custom field to the specific
accounts that need it. You would now have to go over each of the 30
accounts and remove that field wherever it wasn't used. Again, very
After months of use, changing the template every so often and creating
new accounts, you no longer know which fields to expect when
viewing/editing an old account.
> I'd like to emphasize that I'm not criticizing or want to defend my
> standpoint (I don't have one) I'm just simply interested in what
> situation you'd need this.
No worries, hopefully we're all fairly mature people :) Opposing
viewpoints are most welcome, even one is only playing devils advocate,
as they can only make Revelation better.
Erik Grinaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of
life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be
-- Albert Einstein