[dev] Gollem - Preferences for multiple files upload

[Ron Cooper]

Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at bigworm.colorado.edu>:

|
| The trick is to design a UI with minimal preferences that most people
| will like/find easy to use.  So is the file upload patch that critical
| to obtaining this goal?  In my personal opinion, no.  If there is
| overwhelming support for this patch my view may change.
|

Well the trick is for the person or group who deploys this software to
give end users a sane set of options with the rest of them locked down to
some default value.  I would never argue that more options is better in
the context of the 'end user', but the folks responsible for deployment
should probably have a wealth of options from which to choose, if for
nothing else, not having to bastardize the code to their own versions.

Am I the only one who sees this happening as a bad thing for Horde/Imp?
I'd rather see hundreds of patches submitted but rejected than almost none
at all. And once my code base diverges a lot from yours, I have little
reason to continue following your codebase.  Note that I refer to 'my
code base' in a general, generic sense.

|
| But for better or worse, as a developer my voice does carry stronger
| weight so at this point I am not going to commit it.
|

Yes of course Michael. This is your right and privilege as a developer and
I certainly respect that.  I hope I have not given you reason to believe
otherwise.

| I run 800x600 on my laptop, which I developed this feature on.  The
| fact is  that practically _nothing_ is going to fit entirely on an
| 800x600 screen so you are going to have to scroll down to see 3/4's of
| the page anyway. Obviously my idea of what to expect in 800x600


The problem at 800x600 is the screen looks to be more in a state of chaos
because everything cannot be seen at once. Along those lines after having
given it a small bit of thought, seems to me another way of handling this
would be to have a hide/unhide control.  It need not have a preference
other than remembering the hidden/unhidden status for the duration of the
session.  Certainly it would look cleaner, at least to my taste, but I
would be curious what others think about this.


| I have not committed them.  So the path runs both ways - there may be
| code out there that others find useful and I find of dubious value, just
| as  there is code that I find extremely useful that others would find
| of dubious value.


And to me this is a huge problem I was talking about above. It results in
duplication of effort. However, I can understand the reasons for forking
such as in your case at the University.  Still, you probably have
features in that codebase that I would find extremely beneficial, and yet
they will probably never see the light of day outside the University.

This is unfortunate because someone makes a decision they are not
useful anywhere else, but they probably really are useful in a lot of
places. Unfortunately no one will ever have the opportunity to know one
way or another.

Thank you for your reply and thoughts Michael.

Cheers,

Ron



---