After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 642964 - libmenu: Add gmenu_tree_entry_get_short_display_name() API
libmenu: Add gmenu_tree_entry_get_short_display_name() API
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: gnome-menus
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-menus dummy account
gnome-menus dummy account
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-02-22 15:06 UTC by Vincent Untz
Modified: 2013-02-02 02:54 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
libmenu: Add gmenu_tree_entry_get_short_display_name() API (2.87 KB, patch)
2011-02-22 15:06 UTC, Vincent Untz
none Details | Review

Description Vincent Untz 2011-02-22 15:06:14 UTC
See patch.

Note that gnome-shell would likely need to call gmenu_tree_set_sort_key (tree, GMENU_TREE_SORT_SHORT_DISPLAY_NAME);
Comment 1 Vincent Untz 2011-02-22 15:06:16 UTC
Created attachment 181591 [details] [review]
libmenu: Add gmenu_tree_entry_get_short_display_name() API

This would be needed by GNOME Shell to display GenericName instead of
Name for apps, if an app has the Core category.
Comment 2 Vincent Untz 2011-02-24 10:31:15 UTC
Just to make it clear: I need someone to test that it gives good result in gnome-shell before committing that.
Comment 3 William Jon McCann 2011-02-24 14:47:37 UTC
This is pure crack in my opinion.  An application should have one name, a single identity.  It shouldn't be conflicted about what it is called.  It may in addition to the name have an internal code name but that isn't for user consumption.  The application should be consistent in its use of the name.

It is bad enough we currently also have the, so called, full name.  Adding another is just not a good idea.

This is trying to solve a problem that just doesn't exist.  The Name field is not globally unique.  That is a role for app-id.  We should be using app-ids like org.gnome.Totem anyway.

If something is a core GNOME component the name does not have to be globally unique.  It merely has to be unique within the scope.  Calling Nautilus (internal code-name) Files in the UI and desktop file is fine because it uniquely identifies it within the GNOME core utilities scope.

One of the defining characteristics of a GNOME core utility is that it does not have an identity that is distinct from GNOME.  We don't expect it to appear in a KDE app store.

If a utility is concerned about how it will appear in other OS environments then it is not a core GNOME utility.

We have spent almost two years getting the naming consistent within GNOME and have established simple and effective naming guidelines.  Upsetting them and adding unnecessary complexity at this late date is not smart.  Especially when it is really only for one problematic and conflicted program.
Comment 4 Guillaume Desmottes 2011-02-24 15:01:23 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Especially when it is really only for one problematic and conflicted program.

That's not true. The biggest problem with your approach is that it doesn't respect the desktop desktop file specification:
http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s05.html

Name	 Specific name of the application, for example "Mozilla".

Having "Files" or "Chat" is NOT a specific name.
Comment 5 William Jon McCann 2011-02-24 17:33:05 UTC
The use of the term "specific" there is in order to differentiate it from the other "generic" name when that is provided.  Furthermore there is no precise definition of what specific means.  According to our usage guidelines generic names should not be provided for core GNOME components.  See http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/CorrectDesktopFiles
Comment 6 Vincent Untz 2011-02-24 23:22:02 UTC
Jon: we had the exact same discussion on irc already. Do you really want all of us to repeat the same things again?
Comment 7 William Jon McCann 2011-02-24 23:26:36 UTC
Yes, and you're still wrong :)
Comment 8 William Jon McCann 2011-02-24 23:37:13 UTC
At this point, I don't think that it would be correct to change the name of Empathy to Chat.  I withdraw that request.