Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!acorn!steve
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "Daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re:  Programs relying on app-defaults files
Summary: I'm still agin it
Keywords: app-defaults, Xt, Intrinsics
Message-ID: <780@acorn.co.uk>
Date: 25 May 89 13:07:34 GMT
References: <1242@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> <1045@sragwa.sra.JUNET>
Reply-To: steve@acorn.UUCP (Steve "Daffy" Hunt)
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England
Lines: 22

In article <1045@sragwa.sra.JUNET> erik%sra.junet@uunet.uu.net (Erik M. van der Poel) writes:
>In article <1242@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> rlh2@ukc.ac.uk (Richard Hesketh) writes:
>>I don't see that the one-file-per-application argument holds. ... It is
>>certainly not an argument for dropping the use of resource files.
>
>I don't want to drop resource files, I just want to add resource strings. (Just
>to avoid confusion, by "resource strings" I definitely am NOT referring to
>XtSet{Arg,Values} hard-wiring. The resource string is simply an alternative if
>the resource file is not present.)

A good suggestion.  This would allow the customisability offered by avoiding
XtSetArgs without a proliferation of app-defaults files.  I would use
the resource string for values that you NEED (like form constraints) and
the app-defaults file for the frippery.

To Richard Hesketh: the one-file-per-program argument might not be valid in a
world of gargantuan applications, but is that where we are heading?
In a tool-based world, one file per program *is* a good idea.  Imagine
the potential chaos if sed, grep, awk, head, etc all demanded configuration
files, and failed in subtle and silent ways when those files were absent.

						Steve Hunt