[GRASS-dev] Make terminal window optional?

[Veronica Andreo]

Hi Vashek,

Thanks much for all the explanations :)
I guess yes, option 2 is fine (not much will change for me indeed). I'll
only reinforce the suggestion of the OSGeo4W installer for Windows users in
the future.

Vero

El mié., 9 sept. 2020 a las 5:50, Vaclav Petras (<wenzeslaus at gmail.com>)
escribió:

> Hi Vero,
>
> I think the question is if a specific workflow is what we are aiming for
> or if anything that gets users to a terminal+GUI combo is good as long as
> there is not much work for the user. The issue is that some options are
> just much more difficult to implement then the others. Or, in other words,
> the question is what is a sufficient solution.
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 7:10 PM Veronica Andreo <veroandreo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am ok with not having the terminal when starting grass from an icon,
>> but as Steven, I'd like to have a button to still be able to open the
>> terminal from the GUI. For example, next to the icon for the simple Pyhton
>> editor in the menu bar.
>>
>
> Would you still want to have that button there even if that means that it
> won't be as simple as "Open integrated Python editor" from a user point of
> view because there will need to be some configuration involved? Or in other
> words, even if there is a default, it won't work for some people. Is that
> still worth it? (See also my email to Steven Pawley for additional details
> on this.)
>
> Additionally, as I mentioned in the original post, it seems to me (and I
> would be happy to be wrong on this) that we might not be able to close some
> of the terminals. The issue is that we basically need access to the shell
> started there which might be possible. This might be doable by developing a
> mechanism to tell GUI about the shell's PID from the shell itself (now we
> do something like that but are driving that from Python). In any case, it
> would partially rely on the user configuring it properly (because of the
> need for configuration).
>
> One possible way of this is saying we don't care about the prompt,
> history, and invalid session in this terminal once the main process
> finishes.
>
>
>> In my case, I teach Grass from the terminal mostly and we use the gui to
>> display results and such. The workflow would then change to open a
>> terminal, call grass --text and then call the GUI with
>> g.gui... I think that might get even more confusing to students...
>>
>
> So what about the option 2 then? You open a terminal, type `grass`, hit
> Enter, and by default you get the shell (because you are in an interactive
> terminal - that can be detected) and the GUI starts, i.e., exactly what
> happens now.
>
> Vaclav
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20200910/2c573384/attachment.html>