From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
Cc: | Kevin Macdonald <kevin(dot)macdonald(at)pentura(dot)ca>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Change for connection name |
Date: | 2007-08-02 20:07:08 |
Message-ID: | 46B2396C.2070909@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Kevin Macdonald a écrit :
>>> not sure if it looks too techy though
>> I think so too; it's also a bit wordy. From my experience in an Oracle
>> shop, few DBAs are programmer-type people.
>>
>> However, the choice could be controlled within "File->Options".
>>
>
> I don't think a choice is needed here. Moreover, it adds complexity and
> this is not what we want on a beta phase.
>
>> A simple alternative to the complexity would simply be
>>
>> "dpage(at)server_name" -- who you are, and what you connected to.
>>
>> where "server_name" is what you typed for "name" when you clicked on the
>> "wall plug" and established a new server/connection.
>>
>> I think the low-level details (server URL, port, database) is too much;
>> if a person wants these details, they can right-click on a server and
>> choose "Properties..."
>>
>
> We need the database name "detail" because the server name doesn't imply
> it. And using server name is great if you don't change it. I think we
> really need every details, URL form or "verbose" form.
>
>
Let's just use the form you proposed originally - I'll crawl back in my
hole and stop making silly suggestions :-)
/D
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-08-02 20:20:07 | Re: wxWidgets alert at start |
Previous Message | Jyrki Wahlstedt | 2007-08-02 18:47:46 | Re: wxWidgets alert at start |