Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!acorn!steve
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "Daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Programs relying on app-defaults files (was: Re: xclipboard bug?)
Summary: I'm agin it
Message-ID: <773@acorn.co.uk>
Date: 17 May 89 14:23:56 GMT
References: <769@acorn.co.uk> <8905151402.AA06843@THANATOS.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: steve@acorn.UUCP (Steve "Daffy" Hunt)
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England
Lines: 31

In article <8905151402.AA06843@THANATOS.MIT.EDU> swick@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph R. Swick) writes:
>> Date: 14 May 89 13:23:24 GMT
>> From: mcvax!ukc!acorn!steve@uunet.uu.net  (Steve "Daffy" Hunt)
>> 
>> The XClipboard client  seems to rely on undocumented behaviour
>> of the Form widget.
>
>No, it doesn't.  But it _does_ rely on it's app-defaults
>(XClipboard.ad) file being correctly installed in the
>appropriate place(s).  No code patches are needed/appropriate.

So, that's where the missing information was...

I have to question the wisdom of *relying* on a resource file which can
so easily become separated from the program proper.  Just one example
of a situation when this policy can backfire is when Fred gives Sue a
disk with a program on, which fails to work for Sue because Fred did
not realise that this app-defaults file was needed.

Surely the default "I-can't-find-my-.ad-file" behaviour should be
something usable, or else just a message saying "can't find required
resources".

Quietly failing to be usable is asking for trouble.  I shan't be
removing my patch.  Unless there is a convincing counter-argument,
of course.

					Steve Hunt

PS: is it really important?  Hell, yes; think of the amount of hand-holding
the support people could be saved :-)