Setting a protocol handler

[Ed Greshko]

On 03/29/2012 12:28 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 12:18 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 03/29/2012 12:09 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> By no means:
>>>
>>> 1) It *is* a kludge and is clearly brittle e.g. Chrome makes certain
>>> choices based on the desktop environment, such as which password store
>>> to use. Forcing it to think it's in Gnome when it really isn't means
>>> these factors also need to be worked around.
>>>
>>> 2) The kludge happens to work for Chrome because the latter is a GTK
>>> app. It's not a general solution.
>>>
>>> 3) It took a lot of effort to find, i.e. the "solution" is not easily
>>> discoverable, and in fact works by *not* using anything in the KDE
>>> environment. My original comment about this being too hard still stands.
>> So, you will file a bugzilla with the Chrome folks, right?  :-)
> Once again, this is not a problem with Chrome! The particular kludge
> happens to work with Chrome, but it's not a general solution to the
> problem of setting a protocol handler in KDE.
>
> I will consider filing a BZ with KDE though.

Why do you think it is not a problem with Chrome?  If Chrome doesn't make program
selections based on the O/S it is running on then???

What do you want to happen?  How will the OS influence what Chrome is calling to
complete an action it can't complete on its own?
>
>> With FF, the solution is to edit their settings in about:config, right?  It somehow
>> knew about "transmission" but not about "ktorrent" so the "fix" (I believe) would
>> have to go there.
> In fact both KDE and Gnome are supposed to use the XDG standard for
> making these decisions, which in Fedora is expressed through a bunch of
> Shell scripts (look for /usr/bin/xdg-*). The browsers have their own
> mechanisms as well, but as we've seen they don't necessarily mesh well
> with the DE. Maybe the division of responsibilities isn't clear enough,
> I don't really know.

If the browsers mechanisms don't mesh with the DE then "who" is responsible to fixing it?

>
>> Whose effort found the solution?  :-) :-)
> I appreciate your efforts Ed, but I hope you'll understand that IMHO
> even a working kludge is not the same as a solution.
>

I did indeed say it was a "kludge" so I'm sure I know the difference.  :-)

The point however is...at the moment you've only got a "kludge" as an option....as
far as I can tell.  :-(

Yes, you're welcome.



-- 
Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both
be wrong. -- Dandemis