allow changing "Send To" target, and allow in place send to
Submitted by an unknown user
Link to original bug (#719015)
Description
---- Reported by shotwell-maint@gnome.bugs 2013-02-27 16:07:00 -0800 ----
Original Redmine bug id: 6446
Original URL: http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/6446
Searchable id: yorba-bug-6446
Original author: Norbert Preining
Original description:
Currently by default Send To sends to nautilus-sendto, which is not necessarily the best option. In particular, I would like to send the files to my own script, or to phatch, or to whatever.
I think a simple solution for that would be to add to the
Edit -> Preferences -> External Editors
an entry
Send To handler:
That would simply allow sending to whatever a user wants to.
See also the request to allow in place editing #6447
Related issues:
- related to shotwell - Feature #6447: allow send to to access photos in place (Open)
---- Additional Comments From shotwell-maint@gnome.bugs 2013-04-03 17:24:00 -0700 ----
History
Comment 1
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
- Description updated (diff)
Comment 2
Updated by Eric Gregory 9 months ago
Couldn't you write a nautilus-sendto plugin to run the script? Or does that not provide the hooks you'd need?
Comment 3
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
That is not the question, the problem is how would a normal user do that? I don't know how to do that, but I can find out. But a normal user would like to send for example some photos to phatch (photo batch processor) which then does whatever he wants to do and saves the converted files to his photo frame. (This is BTW something I would like to do. Send selected files to phatch, rescale, add margin, do some tricks with shifting, and save to my photo frame).
Just adding
Send to handler: phatch
would help for that already a lot.
A normal user will not be able to write a nautilus-helper!
Norbert
Comment 4
Updated by Jim Nelson 9 months ago
- Status changed from Open to Need Information
No, but an advanced user could code a nautilus send-to script and get it into distribution. Then it's available for the normal user.
Also, I don't know that the normal user is interested in Phatch -- as far as I can tell, you're the first person to inquire about it.
Looking at Phatch, I don't think replacing Send To.. is the proper way to attack this issue. Phatch is an editor, like GIMP or other image editors, but it happens to process multiple images at once. I suspect you landed on Send To as the solution because it handles multiple photos, while Edit with External Editor only deals with one photo.
Instead of changing Send To, I think the proper solution is (a) to ensure that Phatch, if installed, is recognized by Shotwell as a photo editor in the Preferences dialog and (b) to fix #6168, which is to edit multiple photos at once. Then any user can select Phatch and launch it from Shotwell on any number of photos.
Does that sound right to you, Norbert?
Comment 5
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
Hi Jim,
I don't agree with the point that maybe the "Edit" would be a better options than the "Send to". Don't base it on my example of phatch. Think about sending it to an arbitrary program. Honestly, I don't see much difference between the two anyway. "Send to GIMP" or "Edit in GIMP" (replace GIMP with your favorite editor) doesn't make much of a difference.
Concerning phatch: please ignore phatch, it was only an example. My whole point is that we do not know what the user wants to do. We cannot envisage all usage cases. There are many other options
- send photos to a streaming device that presents them on a TV
- send photos to a mail program that is not registered with nautilus
- send photos to a printer via special print driver
- .........
How do you want to accustom all of them? And all the other options we don't know?
I only see one option, and that is to provide at least one way to send a list of files to a user specified program. This is a feature that is still missing.
An example from my case, but this is just and example: I have a photo frame and need the photos in a very specific size filled with black on the sides if necessary, and some frame. My usual work flow is:
- select the photos I want
- export them to a temp directory
- start another program
- load all the photos from the temp directory, creating another temp directory for the output
- move the created files to the photo frame
Now having something like a user configurable "send to" (I still prefer the send to over the edit) that would move the first 4 items into one.
Comment 6
Updated by Jim Nelson 9 months ago
First, Shotwell is not designed to be everything-for-everyone. Experience has shown that to be a losing proposition in the world of software. People value Shotwell for its ease of use and clean interface. We are very, very cautious about adding to that interface, and if we do, how it's presented to the user.
If you can't see the difference between Send To and Edit With, then I suggest you more deeply consider and investigate what they do today before expounding on how they should be changed.
As we've seen with RAW editors, not all programs use the command-line the same way. One advantage of send-to is that it cleanly describes what the command- line should look like, with the script translating that into what the target program is expecting. What you're requesting will require the user to know how to construct the command-line in addition to which program to call:
myth-tv-media-uploader --slideshow --fit-to-screen %U
We're not saying that send-to is the perfect solution, only that it's extensible and widely distributed and easy to code to. There are a lot of ideas out there about how to make programs interoperate more cleanly; see Elementary's Contractor, for example.
Finally, Norbert, while we appreciate the patches you've been sending us, I do not appreciate the confrontational tone of your recent comments. There's no need for it. We will gladly consider any feature request, but of we're going to ask questions to attempt to flesh out the boundaries and requirements of the feature and see if it fits the overall direction of Shotwell's future.
Comment 7
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
Hi Jim,
sorry if my comments came over as "confrontational", that was not my intention. I just tried to explain clearly my motivation. I am not interested at all in any confrontation, just improvement, and I propose some ideas.
I trust you on these matters completely, if you decide that it doesn't fit into shotwell's paradigm, I am perfectly fine with that and will find my own solution (extending send to), or just have a patch that I compile myself.
Concerning the technical topic, that is really the only thing I am interested in: I guess we are finding ourselves at the moment at the typical Gnome3 versus Gnome2 discussion that has spread like bushfire everywhere. I agree that adding something I propose needs a user that understands the commandline and knows how to write programs. Agreed, that does not fit into Gnome3 world.
Bottom line of that, I will see what one can do about easily extending the send-to options.
Thanks for your patience, understanding, and please, once more, don't get me wrong!
Norbert
Comment 8
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
Ok, one more comment: nautilus-sendto cannot be extended by scripts as far as I see, one has to program a plugin (.so) to get a similar functionality.
Furthermore, all documentation mention
This extension provides a simple way to send a file or folder to another using email, instant messaging, or Bluetooth.
:-(
Comment 9
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
Ok, I started some coding for a nautilus-sendto-extension, see http://blog.preining.info/2013/03/01/nautilus-sendto-scripts/
That would allow shotwell to use whatever scripts via this extension.
Comment 10
Updated by Jim Nelson 9 months ago
Ok, good to hear all this Norbert. Yes, I think we all agree we're here to make Shotwell and improve its experience, it's just a matter of coming to some understanding about how to do that.
I haven't looked at your Nautilus sendto scripts repo, but I assume you've seen that you can make sendto scripts in Python (and, indeed, in any language that understands GObject Introspection bindings). That's a lot easier than creating a .so.
Comment 11
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
Hi Jim,
thanks for your message, but I am somehow surprised: I don't know how to make send-to scripts with python, and I haven't seen any example.
Do you mean nautilus-scripts? That is - AFAIS - something different, they are not available in the nautilus-send-to program.
If you have a link to an example I would be very grateful. I would prefer much writing in python over coding in C ;-)
Thanks
Norbert
Comment 12
Updated by Jim Nelson 9 months ago
It's possible I'm mixing up the two. Although, as I said before, I really do think the solution is to treat phatch as an editor than using send-to.
Comment 13
Updated by Norbert Preining 9 months ago
Hi Jim,
yeah, I searched a bit more and downloaded some other providers, but it always ends up in shared libs. Anyway.
Concerning your other remark: On my installation I can already use phatch via edit menu, as it is registered as editor. That is not the point. I want to have flexibility.
As examples, I have in my test implementation of the "send-to-scripts" (btw, code is already feature complete and working!) as test commands:
- gtklp, my preferred print spooler
- phatch
- scp to my server
and I will probably add more. If it would be only for phatch I wouldn't write a plugin. It is about the flexibility to allow the user to send to whatever (s)he wants to. That is not supported in nautilus-sendto, nor shotwell, nor whatever. That I want to change.
Norbert
Comment 14
Updated by Jim Nelson 8 months ago
- Category set to library-mode
- Status changed from Need Information to Open
- Priority changed from Normal to Low
There might be other ways to solve this problem. Let's keep this ticket open for consideration. It may be that we want to offer a way for users to launch their own apps or scripts for media. I'm just not convinced Send To is the way to do it, as that was designed for a specific well-known interface.
--- Bug imported by chaz@yorba.org 2013-11-25 21:59 UTC ---
This bug was previously known as bug 6446 at http://redmine.yorba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6446
Unknown version " in product shotwell. Setting version to "!unspecified". Unknown milestone "unknown in product shotwell. Setting to default milestone for this product, "---". Setting qa contact to the default for this product. This bug either had no qa contact or an invalid one. Resolution set on an open status. Dropping resolution