Home  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Sections
Who's Online
14 user(s) are online (6 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 0
Guests: 14

more...
Support us!
Recent OS4 Files
OS4Depot.net



« 1 (2)


Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2006/12/4 23:15
Posts: 1482
@Raziel

REXX:Odyssey should be in the Client path and the url part should be in the Command Line Format


So

Odyssey | REXX:Odyssey.rexx | "*"http://%s*""

and similarly for https: and file

If I were you I would add it as ODYSSY_REXX to start with till you know you've got it right. Then you can copy from the original (if you have one). (Although if the script was written right, you should be able to drop it in as a straight replacement)



   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/26 21:45
From A haunted Castle somewhere in the Bavarian Mountains
Posts: 2482
@broadblues

Ah...i forgot to drop the "URL=" part
Working now, thanks for the hint

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Just popping in
Joined:
2007/3/23 8:11
From Rehmerloh, Germany
Posts: 188
@Chris

Quote:
That doesn't help with the situation that we currently need to configure everything twice.


Why? You choose either one system or the other. There is no need to configure both, unless you cannot decide and want to switch between both all the time. Once you decided for one system you have to configure only this one.

Quote:
I actually think adopting openurl.library for OS4, and writing a ReAction version of the Prefs GUI, would have been a better approach, but it's too late for that now.


There is a ReAction GUI for openurl.library, but it is not included in the release archives for whatever reason. I will change this for the future releases and adapt the Installer script accordingly to let the user choose.

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Amigans Defender
Joined:
2006/11/17 22:40
From England
Posts: 2862
@tboeckel

Quote:
Why? You choose either one system or the other.


No you don't - the author of whatever app it is decides what they are going to support, and the user is stuck with having to run and configure both in parallel. Especially if it's something old you're guaranteed to need OpenURL.

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Quite a regular
Joined:
2008/1/6 17:56
From Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 773
@kas1e
I prefer the ARexx capability so I have my URL prefs set to pass the URL to OpenURL instead of a browser like this: C:OpenURL "URL=*"http://%s*""
On my system it doesn't matter which method you use; OpenURL will always be used on my system. The result is that the URL is opened in a new tab in already opened Odyssey.

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Quite a regular
Joined:
2008/1/6 17:56
From Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 773
@Chris
Check my last post to kas1e. The reverse case should work too. If you eliminate the AREXX port in OpenURL prefs and set the browser to URLOpen, then the URL will be handled by URLOpen. I haven't tested the reverse case but that should mean you would never need to set 2 sets of prefs. One set of prefs is permanently set to pass the URL to the preferred URL opening program.

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Amigans Defender
Joined:
2006/11/17 22:40
From England
Posts: 2862
@xenic

Ooooh, that's a neat trick

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/9/11 11:31
From Russia
Posts: 3846
@All

So, anyone can point out by points what is wrong with not having arexx support in apps which want clicable urls, but having command line interface support in ?

I mean, why we need to have arexx command "newtab" (for example), but didn't command line option "newtab" ? Just to avoid running binary twice ? But then, on running of app by developer there should be code which will check if app already running or not. And, if developer already make support of arexx, then he can make support of command line (as it needs work in both cases, so why to choice arexx exactly ?).

From myself i can only see that application which are big (50mb+), it anyway will be loaded by elf-loader to memory before it can check if app already running or not, while with arexx its just pure send of one command to alredy working app. But then, there can be small loaders come, which will deal with: something like "odyssey.exe" , "odyssey.bin". And then, speed will be the same, as loader will be about few kb of size.

So, then what else ? I mean what real pluses else ? I can then play with loader from any language i want, and deal with it all i want, and not only with arexx when its just inbuild in.

Is it much easy to programm arexx commands in compare with command line ? I assume nope, need the same init/fini code , the same arrays of commands, the same handling of them.

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/9/11 11:31
From Russia
Posts: 3846
@all
So in end i choice way Thore suggest: support both , just URLOpen will be first. Anyone who will want openurl support, can follow 2 ways: or just remove DEVS:Dostrivers/URL , or as xenic says: in URLOpen setup redirection to OpenURL. But at least if you do not have openurl installed all will works, and if you want , you can install it, and by one of 2 ways make use of it if there will be any needs.

   Report Go to top

Re: VOTE: openurl , urlopen or both
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2007/2/6 13:57
From Donostia (SPAIN)
Posts: 251
@kas1e THX

   Report Go to top


« 1 (2)



[Advanced Search]


Powered by XOOPS 2.0 © 2001-2014 The XOOPS Project