[sword-devel] New website - installation instructions

Troy A. Griffitts scribe at crosswire.org
Fri Dec 19 01:08:58 MST 2008

Just a few comments.

I'm not telling people to do things the WRONG way.

I am pointing out how the SWORD engine looks for it's configuration. 
Has anyone complaingin actually read the doc I pointed to?  This complex 
method of looking for configuration data allow for ANY imaginable 
configuration which has been suggested.  There is no need to augment the 
engine to handle anything.  What we need to do is agree on how Windows 
apps should play together and do thing accordingly.  If we all use the 
default SWMgr() behaviour without specifying our own non-standard path 
to look to for modules, then all of our apps will play nicely together.

That's not the issue.  The same SWORD engine compiled into all of our 
apps will find modules the same way.  There are a few things we need to 
think about avoiding.

One of them is probably what BibleCS does right now-- putting modules in 
./   This does not allow another application to find the installed 
module set.  I THOUGHT (DM can comment on this) that we set SWORD_PATH 
env variable on install.  If this is the case, then all SWORD apps will 
find current modules.

able to WRITE to program files to install modules.  Yes?

Regarding private modules, If GS or another app wants to include private 
modules, then they can call AugmentPath on SWMgr or else we can agree to 
a common area and place that in our sword.conf configuration file in our 
./ app directory.

Just a comment: Vista still sucks and no business I have ever worked for 
to this day has installed it on company computers.  They all take 
advantage of Microsoft's free 'Downgrade' to XP.  Not that this means 
much because our users are mostly home users running Vista, XP, or earlier.

So, to sum up.  I think we should:

Not supply app-specific config data to SWMgr, but let SWMgr default 
through it's normal discovery process.  This will let all SWORD apps 
work the same.

Be sure JSword follows the same rules as SWORD C++

Talk about and agree where we think modules should live on any number of 
versions of windows.

Then choose the appropriate discovery configuration options to find 
modules in these places.

If we agree on a scheme which we discover we do need to augment the 
engine to support, then we can do this, but I think we will find a way 
to configure things using the existing mechanisms (SWORD_PATH, 
./sword.conf, ../library/ whatever).

And I STILL think Windows sucks and would personally throw my vote in 
for NOT doing things the 'Windows' way, which will inevitably change 
next release.

I like putting modules in a subfolder with our apps so we can move them 
around, e.g.:

C:\Program Files\CrossWire\library\
C:\Program Files\CrossWire\The SWORD Project for Windows\
C:\Program Files\CrossWire\BibleDesktop\

Or just leaving them under:
C:\Program Files\CrossWire\The SWORD Project for Windows\
where they are already installed for Windows users because of BibleCS 
(and hopefully we are setting SWORD_PATH) The above name doesn't sound 
too much like a frontend specific name because of how uncreative we were 
with BibleCS' public name.

Other comments:
When was the last time a user looked in there HOME directory on Windows, 
had any clue what any of the files in there were for or cared if any of 
them started with .?

[root at localhost Scribe]# pwd
/windows/c/Documents and Settings/Scribe
[root at localhost Scribe]# ls -latd .??*
drwx------ 1 root root   8192 2008-11-13 00:24 .gimp-2.4
-rwx------ 2 root root   2086 2008-11-13 00:23 .recently-used.xbel
drwx------ 1 root root   4096 2008-05-22 15:31 .borland
drwx------ 1 root root      0 2008-05-22 15:31 .rwpgxhapeide
-rwx------ 2 root root      0 2007-09-09 16:27 .gtk-bookmarks
drwx------ 1 root root      0 2007-09-03 22:47 .cream
drwx------ 1 root root      0 2007-02-24 18:55 .DownloadManager
drwx------ 1 root root      0 2006-12-04 12:56 .flashcards
drwx------ 1 root root      0 2006-06-01 03:15 .dbpilot
drwx------ 1 root root      0 2006-06-01 03:12 .connections
-rwx------ 2 root root   2984 2006-06-01 03:12 .1149156731656.slip
-rwx------ 2 root root   3249 2006-04-29 13:39 .1146343195000.slip
drwx------ 1 root root      0 2005-09-15 20:43 .thumbnails
-rwx------ 2 root root 322715 2005-09-15 20:41 .fonts.cache-1



Matthew Talbert wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with a "." at the beginning of a file or
>> variable name.  It simply hides the folder from regular user view,
>> which is how it should be.  The data in there is not intended for
>> direct user interactions.  If people want to see hidden folders/files,
>> they can enable it.
> No, on windows it doesn't hide the folder, which is the problem.
>> XP is still a recent version of the NT chain.  It's still supported
>> and available on certain machines, and shares a significant amount of
>> user popularity - that's my meaning of recent.  I don't know when in
>> the NT family the concept was introduced of the User directory, but I
>> know it's been in since at least XP.  Not that it much matters,
>> because bending over backwards to support anything pre-XP is most of
>> the SWORD applications is going to be beyond tedious for minimal gain.
> 8 years old is recent?
>> From how I understood Troy, it was merely for the installation of
>> modules - not the creation of them - that he was advocating putting
>> them in Program Files.  Per-user data should probably still be kept in
>> some sort of per-user location.  But installing modules to be shared
>> across the front ends and users should be done in a more global place.
>>  Perhaps the path \Users\Public\Sword should be used for the regularly
>> installed modules, and set to SWORD_PATH, then a per-user folder in
>> %HOME%\AppData\Sword or %HOME%\.sword
> You are basically saying what GS intends to do, but that is certainly
> not how I understood Troy.
> (as for not having "." at the
>> beginning of folders, I currently have .dvdcss, .housecall6.6, .kde
>> and .VirtualBox in my home directory -- it's definitely not unheard
>> of).
> I know, but it's like creating a visually unappealing program for a
> Mac user. Littering the user's home directory with .folders is not the
> most user friendly thing that could be done.
>> I don't remember if XP supports the \Users\Public, but I think it
>> does.  I know that World of Warcraft, in a recent patch, decided that
>> it should recommend that users move the whole game folder to
>> \Users\Public\Games\World of Warcraft instead of \Program Files\World
>> of Warcraft.  After all, that's what the public is for -- shared data
>> that users are allowed to read/write to.  What to do on Windows
>> systems that are pre-user, I have no idea.
> XP doesn't have \Users\Public. It does have All Users\Documents, which
> might be a more correct place to put shared things, but I'm not sure.
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

More information about the sword-devel mailing list