[Geany-devel] more project settings [multiple instance behaviour]

[Eugene Arshinov]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:13:39 +0400%
Eugene Arshinov <earshinov at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:17:38 +1000%
> Lex Trotman <elextr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 4 June 2010 03:11, Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhekov at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Taking point from the proposition to merge the recent files, what
> > > do you think about considering the recent files a logical part of
> > > the file list, and load/save the open/recent file lists together?
> > > This way, we will have better/more recent files (one set for each
> > > project) without the need to override geany.conf on each file
> > > open/close. N.B. Since the list will be handled together, "Project
> > > based session files" will affect the recent file list too.
> > 
> > Would suit me, depends on what other people think.
> > 
> 
> This is a good alternative to "global recent files list" approach I
> described. 
> 

I forgot a side note: this won't do for recent *projects* list.  I think
recent projects should be "global".  Though it won't prevent using the
described approach for recent *files*.

> > >
> > > Per-project interface settings (mostly the interface layout) seems
> > > reasonable too IMHO. I have several programming projects, and the
> > > message window/side bar are very convinient for them. But for my
> > > other projects, one with XSMP documentation/snippets and another
> > > with BDF files, the message window/side bar are practically
> > > useless.
> > 
> > Ditto.
> > 
> 
> Not currently needed by me, but I'm sure it would be useful.
> 
> > >
> > > As a side effect, if per-project recent files and interface
> > > settings are implemented, Eugene's sm will be able to restore the
> > > Geany-s state better. Isn't it time to make the two sm-s
> > > functionally more similar, so we could choose one based on the
> > > implementation only?
> > 
> > Agree, that is part of what the list in the other thread was
> > intended to do and why I was trying to define it in terms of user
> > visible behaviour, so I'm all for this.
> > 
> 
> The more similar the two versions are, the better.  And, I agree, that
> would make it simpler to see their differences.
> 
> Best regards,
> Eugene.