MilanC said:* Web interface. But a web server (even lightweight) might use up a bit of precious memory on Pandora. The nice part is, you wouldn't need anything else than a web browser anymore.
lighttpd eats about 1mb of ram, so it's not an issue.
Battery life and small screen are the main reasons why people want to create a PC application. There will of course also be a Pandora app.majamee said:I think the best way to realize such a programm would be to create it directly as a pandora application. Then there is no trouble with different OSs and everyone who ones a pandora can actually use it.
sindbad said:There's no point in making a windows-only app for this. A Qt frontend to apt or some other package manager would work on all operating systems, including the pandora itself.
majamee said:I think the best way to realize such a programm would be to create it directly as a pandora application. Then there is no trouble with different OSs and everyone who ones a pandora can actually use it.
It's easy to make it work natively on all platforms by using Qt.
There would still be platform dependant features, Qt would help, but it certainly wouldn't instantly give you an app that worked on all platforms.sindbad said:It's easy to make it work natively on all platforms by using Qt.
Squidge said:There would still be platform dependant features, Qt would help, but it certainly wouldn't instantly give you an app that worked on all platforms.
To make a user interface that is consistant with other apps on that platform, it's normally easier to just rebuild the user interface for that platform.
Qt does make things instantly work on all platforms for the frontend. It's much harder to make a different interface and it's mostly pointless since the few consistency problems that Qt doesn't automate can be taken care of easily. Qt is not GTK.
There may have to be two backends though, one for the pandora and one for desktop computers.
Simplicity, Minimal effort to implement, Openness, Extensibility, Self-description, Human readable?azmodean said:I've never understood the love xml gets from so many people, most of the features people list for it are actually supplied by the library used to access it, and most of those features are available with CSV parsing libraries also (or whatever text-based file format you wish to use). The only benefit I can actually think of that is attributable to xml is that many people have been exposed to similar syntax by learning html already.
I suggested this a while ago - if you use a PC program to install apps to your Pandora, that same program could backup your SD Card(s) to prevent data loss, and know exactly what is on your Pandora. You can then easily maintain those cards, even without the Pandora plugged in ('Sync-later' feature).azmodean said:But back on topic, an application repository cache that runs on the host computer (whether the host computer is linux, windows, mac, whatever) sounds like a great idea, one nice feature such a thing could also have is it could act as a staging area for your Pandora applications, where you keep all the apps you like on your PC, and can add/remove them to/from the Pandora at will (primarily for space constraint reasons, but also for backup and system cloning). Might even be workable to extend it to be a media repository as well so managing the contents of the Pandora from your PC has a single interface.
Don't we already have that via the runlevel configuration editor? It states what is started up in each run level.MilanC said:Just a thought: it would be nice to have an easy way to configure which apps/servers/etc. are launched on startup. For example, I will probably disable sync server and all 'usb client' functions (except networking).
It's a lot more readable than a csv file where you have to guess what the fields are from the contents. Eg. Every element is given a descriptive name, and you can easily see the levels. To give it a bit of color, you can even just throw the xml file at your web browser (and get it to parse it with an appropriate DTD).MilanC said:QUOTE
Simplicity, Minimal effort to implement, Openness, Extensibility, Self-description, Human readable?
Erm... I prefer simple text files quite a lot. xml isn't really what I'd call human readable. It's ok if your text editor uses different colors for different functions ( < > symbols, values, comments, etc. ), but not with nano.
While I'm not a fan of the default GUI of Windows, I still think for applications it's important to remain consistent with the look of the platform. I would recommend ditching the shaded black button look and just going with the standard MS look. Ideally it automagically look XP-skinned or like Vista if run with those GUIs. I think this will make it look more professional.StreaK said:New design... i think it'll be final...
Any comments welcome.