[Sparkle] Quiet mode?

[Rob Napier]

I'll start looking at this next week.

Do you believe the answer here is delegation or notification? I was
originally thinking of adding a master "passive mode" key in Info.plist and
then having everything be handled through NSNotifications and calls from the
app into the Sparkle singleton (which would work exactly the same way
whether passive mode were turned on or not).

The current Sparkle pattern seems to be to notify rather than delegate. I'm
not sure we need a lot of updater:shouldDoSomething, willDoSomething,
didDoSomething delegation methods, and I like being able to keep the NIB so
simple (not having to wire a delegate).

Thoughts? Does delegation help us here? Would delegates like
updater:shouldCheckForUpdate: help anyone?

One other question. In applicationDidFinishLaunching:, you have this:

   [self performSelector:@selector(checkForUpdatesInBackground)
withObject:nil afterDelay:delayUntilCheck];

I believe that this ensures that all other applicationDidFinishLaunching
methods will get called before checkForUpdatesInBackground (even if delay is
0). This is important because we need to make sure the app has time to
register for notifications before the notifications are sent (since the
applicationDidFinishLaunching methods can be called in any order). Do you
have the same understanding of performSelector? Or do we need to recommend
apps register for notifications in init or awakeFromNib?

-Rob

On Feb 13, 2008 12:42 PM, Andy Matuschak <andy at andymatuschak.org> wrote:

> Rob's got the idea of what needs to happen: every action Sparkle wants
> to take in talking to the user should be potentially delegated through
> some updater:willDoSomething: method.
>
> I really don't know when I'm going to have time to do this (or
> anything else for that matter); I just finished a twelve-hour midterm,
> and things aren't looking like they'll improve anytime soon. I do
> welcome well-written patches from good souls, though. :)
>
> - Andy Matuschak
>
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Guillaume Cerquant wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Rob Napier wrote:
> >
> >> This is similar to the feature that I was talking about earlier this
> >> week (forced, synchronous update on startup).
> >
> > I just joined the ml, and a search in the archive didn't yield
> > anything useful. Sorry about any redundancy.
> >
> > So based on your response, I suppose this is not possible yet?
> >
> >> I think the underlying need is exactly "quiet mode" in which the app
> >> will handle all user interaction, and Sparkle responds to app
> >> requests and provides notifications, but never pops a dialog.
> >
> > Yes, exactly.
> >
> >> I'm still happy to help code over the next month or so (I have a
> >> release I need to focus on this week).
> >
> > If I can, I would be happy too.
> > I suppose that would not be a lot of extra work.
> >
> > Andy, could you do it between Caltech and your bed?
> >
> > Thanks a lot,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Guillaume
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sparkle mailing list
> > Sparkle at lists.andymatuschak.org
> > http://lists.andymatuschak.org/listinfo.cgi/sparkle-andymatuschak.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sparkle mailing list
> Sparkle at lists.andymatuschak.org
> http://lists.andymatuschak.org/listinfo.cgi/sparkle-andymatuschak.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.andymatuschak.org/pipermail/sparkle-andymatuschak.org/attachments/20080213/7c26f827/attachment.htm