[sword-devel] feature request: module manager enhancement

Manfred Bergmann bergmannmd at web.de
Thu May 14 00:42:18 MST 2009

Am 14.05.2009 um 04:50 schrieb Jonathan Morgan:

> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Daniel Owens <dhowens at pmbx.net>  
> wrote:
>> You've got my vote. It seems to be an understandable confusion that  
>> zipped
>> modules are available but most front-ends don't support their use.  
>> BPBible
>> implemented the installation of modules using zipped archives, and it
>> doesn't even have the standard module manager yet. That to me says  
>> that this
>> feature is easy to implement (and in my thinking long overdue). HTTP
>> repositories are another MAJOR motivation for me too...
> A related problem is the number of different zip formats.  Currently,
> Crosswire has RawZip, Windows Zip (which is just intended for BibleCS,
> IIRC) and Mac OS X (which I'm not sure is really still supported by
> MacSword).

Mac OS X zip file is still supported and we will keep support.
Actually it only is a zipped folder that has a ".swd" extension which  
is registered for MacSword in the OS and is shown as a file in the OS  
file manager.
This makes it possible that you can have MacSword openened  
automatically when the file is opened.

But we also support just placing the unzipped raw folder in the Mac OS  
X default module location path.

We can't support the Windows zip as there is some Windows specific  
setup stuff in it as I understand. Same probably applies to SWORD apps  
on Linux.

> BPBible theoretically supports both Windows Zip and Raw
> Zip, but I think Raw Zip is probably a better format (being at least
> in theory application independent) and we have had a couple of bug
> reports installing the YLT, which I haven't been able to reproduce
> either with Win Zip or Raw Zip.  I would really prefer us to offer
> just the one format (Raw Zip) unless there is a very good reason not
> to, since that saves the need for users to have to make a choice.  If
> we do have multiple formats then I think the wording needs to change
> (currently it is "Windows users should click on the link in the
> WINDOWS column, while Linux users should click on the link in the RAW
> Zip column.").

I would also consider the raw zip as the better format. And handling  
of the zip files should be done by the application because of user  
convenience reasons I would say.
I'm wondering how BPBible handles it?
I would actually just unzip any zip found in the module location of  
the application and then add those to SWMgr.
But it would also be possible to copy over all module data into the  
default mods.d and modules paths.


More information about the sword-devel mailing list