hi, am Sonntag 09 Oktober 2011 (19:29) schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier: > But of course that is up for discussion as well. In fact, that's > where I think it will be particularly useful, once we have a re-desgined > pluginmap configuration widget. Then users could finally select the > pluginmaps we provide, individually. embedded.pluginmap and > under_development.pluginmap would be renamed / hidden, all others would be > visible and checked by default. After that, I think all.pluginmap (or any > other index) will be pretty much obsolete. Do you disagree?
ok, i agree here. once pluginmaps can be checked and uncecked, i don't even see a pressing reason to hide any in the first place. while the mechanism is subject to discussion, i'd still rather have a more transparent and intuitive way of definig the default status of pluginmaps (checked/unchecked) than file names, e.g. by an XML attribute like 'default="active"' or something. if the <about> section will be evaluated at some point, the file must be parsed anyway. viele grüße :: m.eik [another side note: rkwarddev code can now be much more reader friendly, after i switched from using named options to "..." in a lot of functions, so many list()s aren't needed anymore] -- dipl. psych. meik michalke institut f"ur experimentelle psychologie abt. f"ur diagnostik und differentielle psychologie heinrich-heine-universit"at d-40204 d"usseldorf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________ RKWard-devel mailing list RKWard-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rkward-devel
