Bo Peng wrote:
I can see that figure.png is copied to [tmpdir]/filename.lyxdir/embed,
to filename.embed/figure.png and so on during bundling and unbundling.
You also need to change .lyx file several times,
Only when bundling/unbundling actually. But you may note that, if
everything is already inside a self contained directory, the .lyx file will
_not_ change.
No. You extract [tmpdir]filenamedir.lyxdir/embed from the bundle to
$DOC_DIR/filename.embed. (Or you had a typo?)
No, I mean that the file _contents_ will not change. Changing names is
not very important.
You might have a point about 'standardization' (who ask you to?) but I
would disagree that your method is simpler. To the users
1. You are forcing users to use a specific directory structure because
*you* think it is best for them.
2. When a users inserted /path/to/a, you (at least Richard) force
users to update it in /path/to/blah/blah/a.
3. You creates another .lyx format during bundling but only allow
partial conversion between them.
4. You disallow sharing of external files between different .lyx
document, because they do not need to?
5. You (Richard actually) give users three choices to open a .lyx
file,
Yes.
filename.lyz,
Yes.
filename.lyxdir (a directory?),
No. This one should be hidden in the temp directory.
filename.lyxdir/content.lyx with subtle differences between them.
No. Ditto.
I mean, during the two week discussion, I was criticized for
1. keeping filename in .lyx file
2. bundle and unbundle in place
but nodody told me why exactly this is bad except that I am not using
a KISS directory structure. When I told them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 why their
proposal is not practical, suddenly all the arguments about backward
compatibility, user experience change failed. The answers I got were
'I (or users) do not care about these' and 'we are not talking about
implementation details', 'you should think of a way to solve it', or
simply 'you are being annoying'.
Well, you asked me questions and I tried to answer with my idea of would
things work for me, nothing more.
I will stop complaining. I will just say that I *do not* see any
benefit of moving files around,
Is there any drawbacks? Moving file is cheap on most systems and with my
proposal the moving would only happen following a user action. By
definition we are not limited by time constraints in this case.
and I do see a lot of user confusion
and code complexity there.
Well, I've just given my opinion, that's all. Take it as such.
Also, this will not happen without touching inset related code, which
will certainly displease Richard.
I don't think so. The inset code does not need to be touched, only the LFUN
status needs to check for this boolean flag, that's all.
No. The edit button will not work. Some latex output may be in danger
because the external file does not exist.
I don't understand, the files are guaranted to exist because we made
sure to copy them at the first place.
The file monitor code may
break. If you study my code, a full bundle-editing implementation is
actually easier than yours.
I admit I didn't read much this code.
Abdel.
