I wanted to start this thread to get a feel from the Devs as to why the organization is done the way it is done. As well as a possible better understanding of what the general idea was behind certain "features" within the program.
First off, I love this program, I use it on an Hourly basis at work; It come up when I turn my computer on, and it turns off when I shutdown at night; It is a program that I am in and out of so often, that I can justify spending the past 3 weeks (still not finished) organizing and re-entering over 1000 entries, and their credentials into a new database rather than using XML.
That being said, I have run into some fundamental organization issues that seem, to me, to be avoidable by making some rather simple to understand, but large changes to the program.
First, I don't understand the idea behind different types of "groups" and sub connections.
It seems like you have introduced different group types (site, server, workstation, device, etc) as a sort of folder in which connections can be placed, however the bonus of making the distinction between one folder type and another (specific settings for children to inherent) isn't taken advantage of.
Then there is a connection (or so called Entry though that seems to general) which understandably has different types, and a lot of different options. Then you unfortunately add something call Sub connections, which don't make any sense why they are there, but have some wonderful options to them.
With a sub connection, I can reference my parents variables, and link to my parent for all sorts of settings.
The down fall, is that I can't Move a sub connection around, and I can't reference my parent as a connection.
It seems like you are forcing the worst of both worlds by making the distinction between connection/sub connection/folder.
It is my suggestion that the distinction be removed.
I should be able to create a "group" add some "sessions" to that "group", add some "sessions" to those "sessions", add a "group" to those "sessions" and place a "session" within that.
The benefit to this option, is that it will allow for the migration of a child object in one place to be easily move to a different place (while bringing it's children if needed).
If I have a object that represents an RDP connection with a server, and 4 months down the line I need to add SSH object to the same host, I can create a "group", place both of those sessions under that "group" and continue on.
I can as well reference variables in my parent, wherever I am. Currently you don't allow me to place a connection under a group and then within that connection reference my parents IP address.
If there was no distiniction between group, connection, and sub connection; Everything would have a parent that could be referenced.
A object could be created in which other objects could be linked, each referencing their parents information if needed.
In programming terms, it would be a giant link list of generic object pointers.
So the discussion is, what was the idea behind how it is???
If I, say, have a device on the network, and I can connect to it using VNC, PCanywhere, SSH, Telnet, Webpage, and RDP.... how is it you thought that should be represented???
Am I to make a group, into which I place a bunch of connections. (at which point I ask, Why can't those connections reference their parent "group" for information, like IP address, or Host name or contact information?)
Am I to create One connection, and then attach a bunch of sub connections to that. (at which point I ask, why is the name repeated within the display list, and though I can reference parent information, why can't I move those sub connections around?)
Short of it being, unless I my team and I are missing something in the organization of connections in RDM, it seems like you had two visions of the end product when you started programming, and you have ended up in the middle of both with an issue.
Would appreciate your feed back David, and an open discussion about this.
Like I said, We love the program, and use it on an hourly basis. We aren't going to stop using the program because of this, but it would make life A LOT easier if I understood.
First off, I love this program, I use it on an Hourly basis at work; It come up when I turn my computer on, and it turns off when I shutdown at night; It is a program that I am in and out of so often, that I can justify spending the past 3 weeks (still not finished) organizing and re-entering over 1000 entries, and their credentials into a new database rather than using XML.
That being said, I have run into some fundamental organization issues that seem, to me, to be avoidable by making some rather simple to understand, but large changes to the program.
First, I don't understand the idea behind different types of "groups" and sub connections.
It seems like you have introduced different group types (site, server, workstation, device, etc) as a sort of folder in which connections can be placed, however the bonus of making the distinction between one folder type and another (specific settings for children to inherent) isn't taken advantage of.
Then there is a connection (or so called Entry though that seems to general) which understandably has different types, and a lot of different options. Then you unfortunately add something call Sub connections, which don't make any sense why they are there, but have some wonderful options to them.
With a sub connection, I can reference my parents variables, and link to my parent for all sorts of settings.
The down fall, is that I can't Move a sub connection around, and I can't reference my parent as a connection.
It seems like you are forcing the worst of both worlds by making the distinction between connection/sub connection/folder.
It is my suggestion that the distinction be removed.
I should be able to create a "group" add some "sessions" to that "group", add some "sessions" to those "sessions", add a "group" to those "sessions" and place a "session" within that.
The benefit to this option, is that it will allow for the migration of a child object in one place to be easily move to a different place (while bringing it's children if needed).
If I have a object that represents an RDP connection with a server, and 4 months down the line I need to add SSH object to the same host, I can create a "group", place both of those sessions under that "group" and continue on.
I can as well reference variables in my parent, wherever I am. Currently you don't allow me to place a connection under a group and then within that connection reference my parents IP address.
If there was no distiniction between group, connection, and sub connection; Everything would have a parent that could be referenced.
A object could be created in which other objects could be linked, each referencing their parents information if needed.
In programming terms, it would be a giant link list of generic object pointers.
So the discussion is, what was the idea behind how it is???
If I, say, have a device on the network, and I can connect to it using VNC, PCanywhere, SSH, Telnet, Webpage, and RDP.... how is it you thought that should be represented???
Am I to make a group, into which I place a bunch of connections. (at which point I ask, Why can't those connections reference their parent "group" for information, like IP address, or Host name or contact information?)
Am I to create One connection, and then attach a bunch of sub connections to that. (at which point I ask, why is the name repeated within the display list, and though I can reference parent information, why can't I move those sub connections around?)
Short of it being, unless I my team and I are missing something in the organization of connections in RDM, it seems like you had two visions of the end product when you started programming, and you have ended up in the middle of both with an issue.
Would appreciate your feed back David, and an open discussion about this.
Like I said, We love the program, and use it on an hourly basis. We aren't going to stop using the program because of this, but it would make life A LOT easier if I understood.