[sword-devel] New website - installation instructions

[Matthew Talbert]

> I am pointing out how the SWORD engine looks for it's configuration. Has
> anyone complaingin actually read the doc I pointed to?

Yes, and the code, several times today.

> of looking for configuration data allow for ANY imaginable configuration
> which has been suggested.  There is no need to augment the engine to handle
> anything.  What we need to do is agree on how Windows apps should play
> together and do thing accordingly.  If we all use the default SWMgr()
> behaviour without specifying our own non-standard path to look to for
> modules, then all of our apps will play nicely together.

I won't comment on this, because there are still some technical things
I don't understand, but it is certainly more confusing than it would
have to be to figure out how to install reliably to certain locations,
even on linux.

> IF A USER CAN INSTALL OUR SOFTWARE TO PROGRAM FILE, then they should be able
> to WRITE to program files to install modules.  Yes?

No

OK, I was tempted to just leave that as an answer, as that's really
all it deserves, but I'll explain. First of all, do you expect to be
able to write to /usr/bin on linux just because you can install there?
Windows works the same way!! On XP and Vista, you have to grant
administrative rights to install a program, but then the rights go
away. So when you run the software you don't have administrative
rights, which means you can't write to these folders. Even as an
administrator user on Vista, you can't write to these folders without
explicitly giving permission every time.

> Regarding private modules, If GS or another app wants to include private
> modules, then they can call AugmentPath on SWMgr or else we can agree to a
> common area and place that in our sword.conf configuration file in our ./
> app directory.

If the sword.conf could use environment variables, that might be a possibility.

> Not supply app-specific config data to SWMgr, but let SWMgr default through
> it's normal discovery process.  This will let all SWORD apps work the same.
>
> Be sure JSword follows the same rules as SWORD C++

It already doesn't, but is more correct. C++ should do what JSword is.

> Talk about and agree where we think modules should live on any number of
> versions of windows.

Except for minor differences, it appears most people agree on this.

> And I STILL think Windows sucks and would personally throw my vote in for
> NOT doing things the 'Windows' way, which will inevitably change next
> release.

Interestingly, Windows XP and Vista both work basically the same way
and respect the same environment variables, and it seems that Windows
98 did as well. If your attitude is that Windows sucks and we should
avoid doing things the way that fits in with that platform, then that
completely negates your previous comment that SWORD should work fine
on windows. Also, it makes this a very pointless conversation.


> Other comments:
> When was the last time a user looked in there HOME directory on Windows, had
> any clue what any of the files in there were for or cared if any of them
> started with .?

When I used windows for my main computer, I looked there all the time,
and it really annoyed me that apps would fill that up with .folders
that couldn't be hidden.