Shared Library Returns...

A Beta 1 version of the shared script library is back in operation for View users. It's on the View desktop. You can add and modify scripts with the Add-script app. This script and its CGI back-end require a few header fields be present. Eventually a nice browser will be added... but first things first. Every so often we'll rebuild the HTML index files to this library. Eventually that will be automated. I'm sure there are some bugs lurking. Use the Bugs? icon to report them during this beta period. -Carl

Hi Carl, I noticed a few errors when looking through the library - could not open certain idx- files. I guess they don't exist. The other thing is that so many of the scripts there are core scripts - dissappearing after running. Quite a number make reference to image files that have not been downloaded to the cache and therefore bomb out. So my concern is that a new Rebol/View user will be confused when their expectation of "click on icon and it does something" is frustrated. It might be an idea to have a special View interface for dealing with Core only type scripts or that the Core scripts have to be re-written to pause before finishing. Regards, Brett.

Hello Carl, Joel is right - it is not good to accept every script. I just tried first two ones: 1) Bouncing ball - crashed ... 2) Spooky text - it doesn't contain window gadgets to close it - you have to shut down the task via task manager Both above cases should be enough to NOT accept the script into library. The reason is - if newcomer will come first to rebol and there is going to be many scripts which do a) nothing b) problems, it will left him with bad impression and possibly after leaving he/she will not come back and will spread bad attitude towards rebol, while we need just opposite. ... or just do it as Cyphre - wrap each View script into VID window .... the underlying script does not even have to know it - just look at SWIS ... -pekr-

On Fri, 18 May 2001 13:56:56 +1000 "Brett Handley" <[brett--codeconscious--com]> wrote:

> I noticed a few errors when looking through the library - > could not open > certain idx- files. I guess they don't exist.

One more thing... there shoudl be a 'needs' field in the srcipt submitter.... --Maarten

On Fri, 18 May 2001 06:23:40 +0200 Petr Krenzelok <[Petr--Krenzelok--trz--cz]> wrote:

> 2) Spooky text - it doesn't contain window gadgets to > close it - you > have to shut down the task via task manager >

Thanks for the comments. Yes, this is a beta. I hope new users see it that way... but I agree with you (and other comments on this thread too). On those missing folders... I added a few categories that have no scripts, so the folders were not created. Probably should add the folder, even tho it is empty. That would prevent the popup. I also want to add a text file to every folder to explain what types of scripts it contains. On the problem with core scripts... we should discuss this. The script library contains more than just runable scripts. It also has: 1) Examples - that show users something, but don't do much useful. 2) Function Includes - that define functions, but do nothing else. 3) CGI or server script - that need to be run on a server. 4) Pro or Command scripts - that require more than Core or View It looks like we will need to add another field to headers to indicate the above. That info could be used by add-script to use different icons for different scripts. Users can then see what icons are worth clicking on. There might be some way to indicate that the script needs to keep the console open when it has finished. Otherwise, you just see a flash on the screen for Core scripts, and wonder what happened. I think we can manually fix some of the scripts that require images by adding a read-thru or request-download to them. Eventually this will be added to the needs field... making it even easier to include. Finally, I would like a browser for the library. It would appear in the top level folder and allow users to easily browse the library by topic. I've got a prototype for that here somewhere... I can post it, and you can enhance it. -Carl

An option for /core-scripts could be: wrap them in a /easy which contains an extract button and docu?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ursprüngliche Nachricht <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<