[Feature Request] Docky as secondary option

[jbucky1092]

So instead of having Docky as the "theme" of the launcher, why not make Docky a "checkbox" option, so you have the dock and the launcher separated. Of course all the docklets and whatnot are still managed through Do (basically just a dock and launcher tightly integrated). This allows for several things: left/right-hand placement of Docky without being fugly, a more visible launcher area, as it's your standard launcher, and more customization options, as you can have Docky and whichever theme you want for the launcher, and this allows you to develop other themes for the Docky interface alone. I'm going to link to this in a reply to the "Left/Right-hand Docky" feature request thread, as it is said there several times "provde a mockup that doesnt look fugly and we'll think about it"

[jbucky1092 (jbucky1092-gmail)]

Hey I was messing around on my windows box today and thought up a mockup. yes it's crappy but it gets the point accross.
leng text strings under icons would be difficult, maybe w/ a "hyphenate and move to next line after X # of characters" function

[Robert Dyer (psybers)]

I know this is a wishlist but I'll let you know right now, this will never happen *in GNOME Do*. Mostly because we are looking at officially splitting out Docky from GNOME Do. At that point, you basically get this option for free. ;-)

[jbucky1092 (jbucky1092-gmail)]

why would you do that? pretty much the only reason to use Do at this point is b/c of the combined functionality of a dock and a launcher. It doesn't work particularly well as a launcher or a dock (imho), but it works much better than any dock/launcher pair on the market (so to speak).
I assume you intend to maintain at least some level of integration, but still, with 2 separate apps, it'll just get more and more difficult.
I assume you want to do this either to make it easier to extend Docky, as you have been moving towards that w/ the docklets and such, or because... I got distracted by an IM and forgot what my other idea was... hmm...

[Robert Dyer (psybers)]

Hey theres pros and cons to this, clearly. I myself am on the fence, initially I told Jason I may have to fork the project. :-)

I'm definitely starting to like the idea of a split though. The Docky interface is really limited by the fact it *must* allow you to summon. Splitting that out opens up a whole new world of possibilities and we can implement features people want (like side docks!).

Of course we'll try to maintain some form of integration. What exactly that is remains to be seen.

[jbucky1092 (jbucky1092-gmail)]

BUT if you made it a "checkbox option", it wouldn't *necessitate* the summoning functionality which you find so limiting. Here's a larger scope of what I'm thinking:
there are those who use docky b/c (like me) they like to have the dock functionality AND the launcher w/o having 2 apps manage it
there are those who use docky b/c they like to have the dock functionality w/ the launcher *integrated* (i.e. no separate box)
there are those who use docky b/c it makes for a nice, simple dock.
splitting the project would lose you two of these three categories of users (and I doubt that the third accounts for more than 10% of docky users)

[Robert Dyer (psybers)]

You forgot the category of users who *only* want a dock, which I'm sorry to say most likely dwarfs the first two.

As with any major project change, there will be people happy and unhappy. This is why projects get forked sometimes. We definitely welcome input both before and after such changes.

One thing I can definitely promise you is it won't be a 'checkbox option'. The one thing we strive for with Do (and definitely with Docky) is what we call 'sane default options' and minimal choices. This a) ensures people get roughly the same experience b) makes coding much, MUCH easier, which facilitates new feature addition as well and c) makes debugging (and error reporting) sooooo much easier.

[jbucky1092 (jbucky1092-gmail)]

those who only want a dock most likely don't use Do, b/c as I said above, it's not that great of a dock. if they just want a dock, they probably use something like AWN or CairoDock, because they're more functional and more extensible. I'd bet that if you put it to a poll, you'd find that there are quite few who use Docky but don't use the summoned launcher

[Robert Dyer (psybers)]

You do realize that the points you just made actually argue in favor of splitting out Docky, right?

a) if they just want a dock they dont use Docky because its limited - it is limited because its integrated, split it out and we can make it better!

b) those that use Docky dont use summon - then why have it in there anyway? split it out

I realize you are not happy with this idea, and I can indeed sympathize with you. Unfortunately (for you) it is going ahead full-steam. I think though once you see what we end up with you will realize just how good a move this was. :-)

[jbucky1092 (jbucky1092-gmail)]

I actually did not say that those who use it don't summon. I said that the combined function and integration of the summoning and the dock is the only real reason to use it as opposed to, for instance, AWN and Launchy (which is what I'll most likely be changing to when the split occurs, as like I've said, Do w/o docky isn't a great launcher and Docky w/o Do isn't a great dock). I said QUITE FEW, not quite A few, ppl use docky w/o summoning (again, b/c it's not a great dock)

[Alex Launi (alexlauni)]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:59 PM, jbucky1092 <email address hidden> wrote:

> Do w/o docky isn't a great launcher and Docky
> w/o Do isn't a great dock). I said QUITE FEW, not quite A few, ppl use
> docky w/o summoning (again, b/c it's not a great dock)
>

You're fortunately the only person in the history of the project to express
this sentiment, many (us included) feel that docky is the *best* dock, and
Do is the *best* launcher. Launchy is (no bruce) a crappy piece of software
on linux, and the other dock solutions tend to not be user friendly. We have
quite a few users who do not use Do as a launcher, and only use Docky as the
killer Dock that it is, and quite a few that don't use Docky and only use Do
as the killer launcher/quick search tool that it is. Thank you for your
opinions, but we know what we're doing.

--
-- Alex Launi

[jbucky1092 (jbucky1092-gmail)]

well of course internally you have to think your software is the best, otherwise you'd never get anything done. and I know you know what you're doing, but I still feel the need to express my distaste for your decisions- is that not kinda the point of an open-source community? if I knew how to make Do just do what I wanted how I wanted, I would, I'd probably make a fork of it, but I don't- so as an enduser who is only an enduser in this case, I'm here making my opinion available to be heard.
Yes Do is the best launcher in my opinion. Why? because of Docky. Yes Docky is the best dock in my opinion. Why? because of its integration with Do.

[Jason Smith (jassmith)]

Developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers. Without these needed architectural changes, this developer, who writes Docky, will go insane. Just like that guy who throws chairs and yells about developers. Don't get me wrong, I love you for being one of my users but let me set something straight. I make decisions for Docky to make it the best damn dock out there. Do I think Do integration makes Docky awesome? Damn skippy I do. Do I think I can make something even MORE awesome? You betchya (calling Mrs. Palin). Wait until I get Docky-2 out with a "feature complete" release and judge me then. You may come to the conclusion that the Do integration was actually holding it back. I know it will be hard to have blind faith, but I built Docky 1, I can build Docky-2!

Before you make any more comments, this does NOT mean:
- Docky will get more complicated to use
- Docky will be gaining a huge number of options (all options gained I hope to make possible to configure without a traditional configuration UI)
- Docky will have an overbearing configuration dialog (hate thouse)
- Docky will suck

This may however imply:
- Docky may get buddy buddy with some other upcoming technologies.
- Docky may be entered into a cloning machine
- Docky may be able to manage things you never thought possible
- Docky may become aware of things in magical ways that will always be magically awesome