DM,
before I put in a git, I thought I'd run this by you. Does it make sense so split out the transfer menu section and make it it's own xfer_sec or something like that? It would make sense sice we now have chat_sec, xtrn_sec, email_sec, and text_sec.

Might be good to do this before people start dipping into their own customizations.
---
■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
By: Nelgin to digital man on Wed Mar 15 2023 08:43 pm

> DM,
> before I put in a git, I thought I'd run this by you. Does it make sense so
> split out the transfer menu section and make it it's own xfer_sec or
> something like that? It would make sense sice we now have chat_sec,
> xtrn_sec, email_sec, and text_sec.
>
> Might be good to do this before people start dipping into their own
> customizations.

Different command shells have traditionally very different file transfer sections/menus (from the other command shells), so I don't really see the value in that.
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #13:
Karl: He lives inside of his own heart. That's an awful big place to live in.
Norco, CA WX: 49.8°F, 97.0% humidity, 0 mph N wind, 0.56 inches rain/24hrs
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
By: Nelgin to digital man on Wed Mar 15 2023 08:43 pm

> DM,
> before I put in a git, I thought I'd run this by you. Does it make sense so
> split out the transfer menu section and make it it's own xfer_sec or
> something like that? It would make sense sice we now have chat_sec,
> xtrn_sec, email_sec, and text_sec.
>
> Might be good to do this before people start dipping into their own
> customizations.

as a long time user of synchronet I don't think that's something i personally would want.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
By: Digital Man to Nelgin on Wed Mar 15 2023 22:06:45

>
> Different command shells have traditionally very different file transfer
> sections/menus (from the other command shells), so I don't really see the
> value in that.

It just seems like a logical step. You've got the 5 major functions, email/netmail, file transfers, external programs, text area, and chat.

It just seems cleaner and logical to have a "main" menu and then control everything else from their own .js file. Otherwise, why separate all the other parts out. I think making the transfer section its own sec.js would pretty much round things off. There could then be an xfer_sec in the loadable modules (and maybe add email_sec too)?

It just points to a cleaner, modular design. It's just odd having transfers in there.

If it's not something you want to do then I may just end up doing it myself and hope for the best.
---
■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
By: Nelgin to Digital Man on Thu Mar 16 2023 02:06 am

> Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
> By: Digital Man to Nelgin on Wed Mar 15 2023 22:06:45
>
>
> > Different command shells have traditionally very different file transfer
> > sections/menus (from the other command shells), so I don't really see the
> > value in that.
>
> It just seems like a logical step. You've got the 5 major functions,
> email/netmail, file transfers, external programs, text area, and chat.
>
> It just seems cleaner and logical to have a "main" menu and then control
> everything else from their own .js file. Otherwise, why separate all the
> other parts out.

I only did that for reuse in Baja command shells. I don't think anybody wants to reuse a single file transfer section among multiple command shells.

> I think making the transfer section its own sec.js would
> pretty much round things off.

I think it would involve a lot of copy and paste of code unnecessarily. If you look at default.js, the only difference between the main/message section and he file transfer section is a data. The code is exactly the same - so why copy it to another file? That doesn't make sense to me.

> There could then be an xfer_sec in the
> loadable modules (and maybe add email_sec too)?

I don't see that serving a purpose.

The email_sec having its own loadable module configuration is a separate discussion, but since there was never an "email_sec" Baja function, there was no way to invoke such a loadable module in the first place (from a command shell written in Baja).

> It just points to a cleaner, modular design. It's just odd having transfers
> in there.

I don't think so.

> If it's not something you want to do then I may just end up doing it myself
> and hope for the best.

If you're writing your own command shell, certainly split things up however you like or see as best. In the command shell that I wrote in JS (default.js), the main/message and file transfer sections share the same code/logic, so splitting into multiple files made no sense. It's certainly not a big file. And I don't see any *other* command shells wanting to re-use just my file transfer menu/section. Other command shells typically use a very different layout and set of command keys and even look/feel/style (prompts, etc.).
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #61:
How to get Synchronet technical support: http://wiki.synchro.net/howto:support
Norco, CA WX: 50.0°F, 97.0% humidity, 0 mph SE wind, 0.35 inches rain/24hrs
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
By: Nelgin to Digital Man on Thu Mar 16 2023 02:06 am

> Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
> By: Digital Man to Nelgin on Wed Mar 15 2023 22:06:45
>
>
> > Different command shells have traditionally very different file transfer
> > sections/menus (from the other command shells), so I don't really see the
> > value in that.
>
> It just seems like a logical step. You've got the 5 major functions,
> email/netmail, file transfers, external programs, text area, and chat.
>
> It just seems cleaner and logical to have a "main" menu and then control
> everything else from their own .js file. Otherwise, why separate all the
> other parts out. I think making the transfer section its own sec.js would

well these other parts you mention are small areas with a handful of functions.

the transfer section is part of the 'meat' of the menu system.
main message and transfer. chopping things up further just seems like it would make things messy and not cleaner.

Nothing is stopping individuals from doing this on their own.
I think making additions like this adds to the confusion of new sysops.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Splitting out transfer from main shell
By: Nelgin to Digital Man on Thu Mar 16 2023 02:06 am

Ne> It just seems like a logical step. You've got the 5 major functions,
Ne> email/netmail, file transfers, external programs, text area, and chat.

Ne> It just seems cleaner and logical to have a "main" menu and then control
Ne> everything else from their own .js file.

I'm not sure about that.. I don't think I'd want too many things split into their own .js for the command shell. I like having just one main script for my command shell where everything is there. I consider the file transfer menu a fairly significant component that I'd like to keep within the command shell and not have a separate script for that. Also, since a command shell is meant to be customized for your wants & needs, I don't think there is a real need to have a standardized file transfer section. For instance, I want it to display my own ANSI menu file (which fits in with the overall theme of my other ANSI menu files), and I might want to have some additional commands on my file menu that other command shells might not have.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com