Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Dry Run Mode, + W9X

From: "Serguei Mokhov" <mokhov(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>
To: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "pgadmin-hackers" <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Dry Run Mode, + W9X
Date: 2004-09-19 17:52:52
Message-ID: 00d101c49e71$7d779ae0$0301a8c0@gunnymede.lan (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Sent: September 19, 2004 1:29 PM

> Serguei Mokhov wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > What do you people think of adding a so-called
> > "dry run" mode to pgAdmin? Basically, what I want
> > is to be able to step through all the dialogs and forms and
> > the rest of the UI in some test mode so that I can
> > see all the GUI elements and their appearance w/o
> > actually performing any underlying operations.
> 
> This seems a good idea to support translators. But it has some caveats 
> which have to be considered while implementing. E.g. a dummy server may 
> not be written to the registry when exiting the app.

Yes, the point is NOT to use the registry at all in the dry run mode.
It is not always I have a permission to do so where I am doing the
actual work.

> Many strings which are not easily understandable without context are 
> probably error messages. A translator would still have the problem "when 
> is this string xyz used".

For myself, the error messages are least of my worries. Most problems I have
are with field labels that cannot fit within a given container when translated,
so a part of a label's text gets truncated. For the dry run mode you need
little context, you just show all possible dialogs and forms for a given
action.

> Win9x support is still not implementable. Our weak 9x support is not a 
> database connection issue; it's the operating system lacking proper 
> unicode support, which is unfortunately *the* limiting factor for your 
> "dry mode" target audience.

Nonetheless, Dave Page built 9X binaries for 1.0.2, which work perfectly okay
for me. Another reason is the registry usage, but as I said, I want to
avoid the use of registry in the dry run mode altogether.

So, if I address the caveats and other issues that come up and
if the change is not too invasive, I have some chances for the
work to be applied when I contribute it?

> Regards,
> Andreas

-s


In response to

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2004-09-19 18:17:12
Subject: Re: Dry Run Mode, + W9X
Previous:From: cvsDate: 2004-09-19 17:42:55
Subject: CVS Commit by andreas: Remove line duplication Remove line duplication

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group