background:
If you're in a hurry, just read the question section.
I'm a new user of Dopus, installed version 9.1.0.1.2947.x86 for evaluation, deciding whether to purchase the product. I've Read the FAQs, I've Read the intro by Leo; I intend to be a purchaser and "power user" (and perhaps plugin developer) of Dopus if I can get a few more insights on unanswered questions.
overview:
Some windows applications (the ones that dont save settings to the Registry) like to save settings in special files in special directories, and these special places sometimes cannot be changed by the user.
For people who like to have their files all organized nice and neat, this is annoying.
question:
Does DOpus allow the user to specify their own configuration and settings directory where the files get saved and read from? I know there is a backup utility, but I am asking for the ability to actually change the location for /dopusdata. Not just the ability to backup that data somewhere else.
rationale:
It's very helpful to be able to put all application settings in a single directory tree that always gets backed up by an automated process, and is in one easy-to-find place so you don't have to chase down a bunch of config files in different directories. It's also nice not to be forced to use the Windows defaults, e.g. c:\documents and settings\username\application settings ... or whatever, as a lot of crap accumulates there that you don't necessarily want.
If Dopus can deliver on this, I will be well on my way to buying this and recommending it to all my geek friends.
You could add something to the start of the backup process which copies the two Opus settings directories to somewhere else. Everything you'd want to backup is two directories so there isn't a lot of scripting needed to collect them up.
Alternatively, I guess you could create junctions from the standard settings directories to wherever you want the Opus config files to be.
Presumably Opus isn't the only program whose settings you wish to backup and which store its settings in the standard place, so having the backup process handle cases like that seems inevitable.
Perhaps common, but definitely not inevitable; you might be surprised by how many apps allow the user to change the 'standard place' ... In fact, for me anyway, this is one thing I determine before buying or using any software.
In the cases where apps do force me into the default locations, I usually try to stay away from those apps entirely, or just classify them as 'disposable', and don't use them for anything important.
If I'm going to consider DOpus as an explorer replacement (and dust off my credit card for the honor of doing so) that would obviously take it out of the 'disposable' category.
It may seem like a nitpick, but this kind of flexibility really provides a huge advantage once you get accustomed to keeping config settings in a single, predictable place with no dependencies on decisions that someone else forces on you. This is one reason why I never buy (non-disposable) apps that store important settings in the Registry. I also dislike the Windows defaults for other reasons outside the scope of this forum.
Its too bad, because it seems like DOpus makes some excellent design choices in so many other areas, this seems like one of the few major drawbacks of this application.
Feel free to send GPSoftware a feature request, via their support page, as they might consider allowing the config locations to be overridden by some kind of setting. It is presumably not difficult to do since Opus already does exactly that when running from a USB stick.
(Presumably that "config location" setting itself would have to be in the registry or a well-known directory that isn't your non-standard "config for programs I want to backup" directory? Or do you specify it as an argument to the programs and modify their shortcuts and "run" registry entries?)
So maybe GPSoft will add the feature but all I can say is "wow", since you must have passed by a lot of useful apps based on what is, IMO, very much a side-issue. It's your money so you can be as stubborn as you like about how you spend it, of course!
I honestly don't see what the disadvantage is in solving the problem by making scripts or junctions which place or copy the config files where you want them for backups. The Opus settings are in two directories and are not spread out all over the place or in the difficult-to-back-up registry, so what's wrong with listing those directories (and those of any other programs whose settings you wish to backup) in your backup script? Or, if you want all of your "settings I backup" files to be below a single directory, using junctions to make it so?
Aren't two lines in a script, or two junctions on the harddrive, exactly as simple and elegant as any other way to tell a program where to store its data if you don't want the default local & roaming locations to be used?
Your suggestion is a great workaround, but it's just that, a workaround.
Indeed, I've written many many scripts and hacks to get around various limitations and assumptions in Windows. It would be very nice to not have to add yet another one-off patch to windows itself; which is what your workaround amounts to.
Afterall, if you really wanted to, you could easily write scripts to import and export settings from the Registry itself. People who don't like programs that put important information in the registry could just be told to "write up some scripts" to handle it ... problem fixed. I assume we'd both agree, however, that some folks would consider this "sub-optimal".
That being said, I've no major objection to your helpful suggestions, but there are definitely reasons why something that seems fine to you, might seem extremely cumbersome to someone else.
I could enumerate many reasons why, but in the end it really it just boils down to personal preference and work style. If that answer seems shaky to you, feel free to email me and we can discuss it, as some of this stuff is really off-topic here.
Thanks sincerely for your input though, so far this is the only issue that comes close to a "minus" against buying DOpus (in my view).
This could be handled: 1) upon installation, when DOpus asks where to install the program, it could also ask where to place the configuration root in the same manner; or 2) upon the "first time run" DOpus could add this as a node in the "initialization wizard" and ask the user if settings should be "per user" or "shared" ... if "shared" then include an option to set the configuration root at a specific directory, instead of just silently choosing the windows default.
If you're asking where I would put it in the preferences dialog, I wouldn't be too concerned about that, since (as you know already) the whole thing is searchable -- another excellent design decision in favor of DOpus that more applications would do well to adopt. Moreover, if anyone has reason enough to change away from the default, they will probably also make note enough to know where to look for it if they want to change it again.
If you're asking how I would implement it given the design of DOpus itself, I don't know enough about the application or the codebase to know what sort of implications this might have. My initial impression is this application is designed well enough that such a change would not be something the developers had not at least already considered.
I am asking where the "the real configuration data is in C:\blah" data would physically be stored.
When Opus runs it has to find its configuration data. At the moment it does so by looking in a "well-known" location, i.e. the standard directory for configuration data on Windows. If the configuration data is somewhere else then, presumably, Opus will still look in the well-known location, just to find the "the configuration is somewhere else" value, and then look there.
But doesn't that mean you still have some of Opus's configuration in the standard location? It is only one setting -- the setting which tells Opus all the other settings are somewhere else -- but it's still part of the configuration and in order to restore that configuration on a new machine/install you thus still have to deal with the well-known configuration directory. There's no way around dealing with at least some settings in a well-known place.
Having established that, what's the difference between these two methods:
[ol][li]A file in the well-known configuration directory which tells Opus to look in another directory.
[/li]
[li]A junction in the well-known configuration directory which redirects Opus to another directory.[/li][/ol]
Both methods use one item in the same directory to produce the same result.
Going back to my earlier posts, the above two also seem equivalent to adding one line to a script file that lists the configuration locations which need to be backed up.
In all three cases a simple, single-item change needs to be made as a one-off operation during, or just after, Opus is installed.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just don't understand what the disadvantage to the methods I've suggesting is.
The two key advantages to them is that:
[ol][li]They work with Directory Opus already.
[/li]
[li]They work with every other program that stores its settings in directories, allowing you to choose from a larger selection of programs without worrying about where they store their settings, while still being able to back them up easily.[/li][/ol]
I think the point you are missing is that "one-off" workarounds and hacks work fine if you have very simple requirements. Not everyone does. I can understand how this workaround would work great for you and other folks, I can also see significant drawbacks. Apparently you can't, that's great; that means you've got nothing to worry about and you can call it a day.
Just so we're clear, none of the points you've mentioned (and repeated and elaborated upon) were lost on me the first time you made your suggestion. It's not a case of misunderstanding the simplicity of your workaround, its a case that your workaround is not one-size-fits-all.
There are very specific reasons why, but I won't elaborate here. This thread is already too long.
Obviously dreftymac has very stringent ideas on what he considers to be flexibility in configuration management. Seems a little over the top to "me", but to each his own .
I can't think of any real drawbacks to any of nudels suggestions (much less significant drawbacks...) other than possible permissioning issues on multi-user systems, but then maybe you'd still bump into such issues even with a custom config location? A script can most definitely copy stuff from one or more 'system' folders every bit as easily as from a user-defined 'super-config' directory where dreftymac and others like him might otherwise keep ALL config info for ALL software that makes the A-list for allowing such a config change. All a matter of personal prefs I suppose...
FWIW, I don't see configuring Opus to point to a specific configuration folder as much of a problem at all. It could be in a simple config file in the application installation directory... but even if it weren't, and it was instead in a common "well-known" docs and settings\user type folder or even the registry again, what would that matter? Such a thing would be really unecessary to backup... Presumably Opus would
startup looking for such a config 'pointer' file first in a location that would NOT be configurable
if it were to fail to find it, it could just then fall back to normal mode and look for the 'actual' full config files in the "well-known" directory(s)
in the case of a config 'restore' where there might not be ANY 'actual' full config files in any "well-known" directories, Opus could then simply prompt the user with a browse dialog that said something like:
Anyhow, long threads are fine if they don't wander off topic and theres a point to the discussion; and if good ideas come out of them then it's a win win scenario...
Given that:
[ul][li]Opus has to somehow know where to find the configuration if it isn't in a well-known place.[/li]
[li]To tell Opus where the configuration is you need to create something in a well-known place which points to the configuration.[/li]
[li]That needs to be done once during, or just after, installation.[/li][/ul]
Then, whether that operation is done in the installation wizard with a nice GUI or done by hand, a "one-off" operation is needed to write a piece of data in a well-known place so that the next time Opus runs it can find the config.
Are you saying it's a hack or workaround if you have to do it by hand? If so then that is fair enough, but you have not elaborated so I don't know.
Would you be happy if the installation wizard asked "where do you want your configuration files?" and took care of the details behind-the-scenes?
Or do you think the whole idea of "a piece of data in the well-known place pointing to the real config location" is wrong?
Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick and there's a much better way to do all of this that I haven't thought of, but you haven't offered up any details so I'm left guessing what you have in mind and what your objections to the alternatives are.
[quote]Not everyone does. I can understand how this workaround would work great for you and other folks, I can also see significant drawbacks.
Apparently you can't, that's great; that means you've got nothing to worry about and you can call it a day.
[...]
There are very specific reasons why, but I won't elaborate here. This thread is already too long.[/quote]
If your reasons are valid then there's a good chance GPSoftware will take them on board and add the feature for you. Opus is not set in stone and features discussed on the forums get added all the time, so if you want a feature and aren't happy with the alternatives/workarounds then explain why and help people work out how to implement what you want. But unless you are willing to explain those reasons, and describe the significant drawbacks you see in the existing alternatives, then you are not going to convince anybody that what you're asking for is worth implementing. If it doesn't mean enough to you to spend time typing a message, why would it mean enough to GPSoftware to spent time adding the feature?
Once there is agreement that a feature is worth adding, if you want that feature to work in a particular way -- and it's clear you have something very particular/specific in mind -- then you need to discuss it with people to help define exactly how it should work. Otherwise GPSoftware may think, "yeah, that's a good idea" and spend time implementing it, only to give you something that still doesn't do what you want, or which is no better than the alternatives that already existed, which would be disappointing for you and a waste of GPSoftware's time.
For me, a huge fan of Opus who wants to help people get the most out of it, it's very frustrating to put time and thought into a thread, to suggest ways that what you want could be done already, and to put forward potential ways that it could be implemented as a a proper feature to see if they fit what you're after, only to receive the feedback that all of those ideas do not work for reasons that cannot be disclosed.
If you think you've wasted your time with this thread, think how I feel. You describe the lack of this feature as a "major drawback" yet seem unwilling to define how it should work or explain what is wrong with the alternatives. I don't personally care about this idea yet I seem more willing to put the effort into getting it to the point that GPSoftware might look at it, agree with it and implement it in a way which makes you happy.
Hmmm... Perhaps we should take a step back here. I'm not complaining about DOpus. In fact I think (from what I have seen so far) it is one of the most well-designed Windows apps that makes a lot of right design decisions where so many other apps fall flat. It also appears the development team is really responsive to (legitimate) suggestions for improvement. It also appears there are a few curious "rough-spots".
When I say I see a drawback, that's just me, I don't expect the world to change to suit my preferences, and I also don't expect everyone to understand or agree with me.
If you are truly astonished that I don't like applications that force the user to use any Windows "default-location" (or indeed, any arbitrary location that cannot be changed by the user) ... then I guess we simply don't see eye-to-eye on this specific issue.
If this does astonish you though, that's ironic; even you complained once about Activestate Perl using the brain-dead "c:/perl" default install path (which by the way, indeed can be changed to whatever you want, without causing any problems).
Is it that much more of a logical leap to understand why people might want to change things besides just the default install path?
Like I have already said, if you really want an elaborate explanation, send me an email; much of this is IMHO beyond the scope of this forum, especially considering you may just disagree with my rationale and we end up back where we started.
If DOpus developers decide this is not a top priority, no problem, life goes on and I respect their business decisions. If they need technical hints on how this can be accomplished, there are plenty of windows apps out there (some of them completely free) that do this. Finding one or two to use as an exemplar (along with completely open source code) will not be the slightest bit difficult.
If DOpus doesn't implement this feature, it probably won't stop me from evaluating it or even recommending it and purchasing it. It's just one more factor to weigh "pro versus con".
Nevertheless, I will always prefer applications that don't enforce fixed assumptions about specific directories on the user's computer, over those that do. It's really just that simple.
Dude... you are completely missing the point. I think we can all simply agree that stating that you wish a product worked in a way other than it does at the moment is not "complaining". But the idea that you're reasons for why any of the 'workarounds' suggested have 'significant drawbacks' not being appropriate to discuss here on the forums is simply rubbish, and your seeming refusal to discuss ideas of just 'how' GPSoft 'might' implement somethign to your liking is what has nudel a bit bummed... not your personal ideals on how software should work.
The only concern you should have about the 'length' of this thread is in whether or not you make another lengthy reply without putting forward some ideas on how to implement the kind of change that would do what you'd like in the 'way' that you'd like... this is not 'complaining', it is constructive feedback. And as for your dislikes with the workarounds... well... this actually is the place to discuss such things...
@steje: I've already given the Ultimate Justification (TM) for which there is no refutation: "because that's the way I see it."
If that justification is "rubbish" in your view, all I can say is you have every right to your personal opinion ... please consider extending the same right to others.
Yes, I do actually have reasons for having this preference, but quite frankly, if you can't accept that someone actually has a different preference, I really see no point in giving justifications, especially when I'm the one paying for my own copy of the software.
When I buy a sandwich at the local lunch place, and I ask to make a substitution on the toppings, I expect to hear either: "yes", "no", or "yes, but we charge extra for that" ... I do not expect to hear "why?"
Even if they offer an alternate topping that they think should be "good enough" ... I do not expect it to be forced down my throat or to be badgered into giving detailed reasons for why the "good enough" is not "good enough" for me.
If they say to me "that might be a good idea, but you need to tell us how we can change our sandwich making process to meet your preferences" ... all I can say is, "there are plenty of sandwich places that do it, either figure it out from one of them, or feel free to ignore my request!"
What am I? A customer, or a sandwich-shop consultant?
As has been explained to you, the reason for the "Why" is not just idle curiousity. It's genuine interest, it could be that on hearing your justification then others may adopt the practice, Gpsoftware may immediately change the code to suit, etc etc.
If you can't be bothered to take the time to fully explain your needs and requirements then I doubt very much whether GPsoftware can be bothered implementing an idea based on a limited explanation.
If you are in fact so arrogant to presume that simply telling GPSoftware that they should implement something you (and so far you alone) have requested is enough then there's not much hope for you really.
Ridiculous analogies about sandwich shops do nothing to support your case - there's no comparison betweem a sandwich and a complex software tool such as Oopus.
People have taken the time to read your posts and ask for further information and clarification - continuing to deny them starts to look like you don't have any real reasons other than habit and are somewhat embarassed to admit it...
Hey Tanis... CLEARLY you're misinformed! Here in the states, all sandwhich shops have special rooms provided by the establishment where customers can congregate and discuss their ideas for new toppings, condiments and beverages, or get advice on good sandwhich combos...
I met a guy at a shop once who very nicely suggested that they might start putting pickles on their sandwhiches. One person suggested he just use some cucumbers from the salad bar sprinkled with a little vinegar, and the guy understandably scoffed at that... but then some other folk became interested and asked "well, just what kind of pickles do you want... sweet gherkins, sour dill, garlic dill, bread and butter pickles?".
Unfortunately, the guy just sort of went into a vauge retort about how vinegar was not a great ingredient for proper pickles, and how the 'salad cucumber' was not ideal either... and it all sounded reasonable although he didn't really explain anything.
A few weeks later, the fella could be seen mumbling and removing the large chopped pieces of garlic dill from his sandwhich that the shop owner decided to go with on his own after receiving no feedback from the guy or any other customers...
That's entirely different because C:\ is not a standard install point for applications and having stuff put there is ugly and gets in my way when I am navigating through C:, which I do a lot. If ActiveState Perl was hardcoded to install into %ProgramFiles% then I would not have even noticed, let alone complained, unless it was something like a 5GB install (where it is useful to be able to specify a different drive if you don't want all of that on the drive with your %ProgramFiles% folder).
Besides which, install paths are not the same as settings paths. Wherever you install an application to, you create shortcuts on the Start Menu which point to it to allow you to run the app. If the app is associated with file types or provides COM/ActiveX DLLs then it will write settings into the registry so that the OS and other applications can find the components wherever they are stored. Where is the Start Menu stored? In a well-known location. Where are the settings stored in the registry? In a well-known location. Otherwise how is anything going to find them?
So the very ability to install applications wherever you want comes from the fact that settings, or at least some settings, are written to well-known locations. Well-known but not necessarily hardcoded. You can move the physical locations of your Start Menu and Program Files directories, but only through modifying registry entries that are in a well-known location. Anything you can move must be pointed to from a well-known location so that it can be found. That's obvious, unless applications are expected to search the entire computer every time they are launched. Which may well be how you want the feature to work for all that you've told us so far.
There is no problem working out a way to do this technically. The problem is working out a way which will make you happy when you won't tell us the full story and have already rejected or ignored multiple ideas so far. It isn't a question of finding a random program and seeing how it does it. I would bet that they do it by putting a small setting in a well-known location -- the registry or the user's settings folder or the arguments to a shortcut -- which points to where the rest of the settings are.
Yet every time I mention this as a possibility you say nothing. We don't know whether it would satisfy you or not. We are left guessing what you might want.
All you will say is something vague about wanting to backup your settings and/or move some of them to another location. I have already put forward multiple ways that you can do both of those things, as well as ideas on things Opus could do differently to make it even easier/slicker, but in every single case you have either said that the idea doesn't work for reasons you refuse to reveal, or said nothing at all leaving us to wonder what it is you want exactly. You seem to expect us to magically come up with the correct answer without knowing what was wrong with our previous answers.
The only thing that is clear is that you have unusual and very specific requirements which you won't tell anybody. Given that, and the dismissed or ignored ideas so far, how am I or GPSoftware supposed to know if a particular method of moving the settings folder, or automating its backup beyond what you can do already, will be what you want, even if a random program is found which lets you move its settings in some way? (Presumably one of the ways I've suggested already.) You won't enter into a discussion about it and won't even mention one specific example or method or program. There's more than one way of doing it, you've ignored or dismissed the obvious ways of doing it, so tell us how you want it to work. Or give us more detail on what you're actually trying to do so that we have a better chance of coming up with something which does what you want. If you can't do either of those things then we're stuck.
If you want this feature and believe it is a good idea, why are you concealing every possible detail of it? Don't you see that is counterproductive? Are we supposed to keep suggesting ideas with no other feedback until you say 'yes' to one of them? Are we playing a software-requirements version of Guess Who? (Is the feature wearing glasses???)
You seem very defensive about why you want things to work in a particular way. Why can't you talk about it in public?
You keep saying that discussion of your idea is outside the scope of this forum, yet apparently you are happy to engage in this meta-discussion. If you have the time and will, and think the forum is suitable, for talking about talking about your idea then why not actually talk about it instead? This thread could've been over by now and the idea passed to GPSoftware and implemented for the next release. Instead we're talking about sandwich toppings.
This forum is precisely for members of the user community to discuss ideas (among other things). Explaining why and how you want something to work is very much in scope and even if it wasn't you could talk about it in the CoffeeShop forum where almost anything goes. An idea properly discussed by multiple interested people will be fleshed out more than one discussed by only two people. Better solutions may come up, or people may have slightly different but related requirements which the idea could be expanded to accommodate, resulting in a change which pleases more than just one person.
Even if you explained it to me in a private email thread you would still have to explain it to GPSoftware since it is they who change Opus, not me. Explaining the details to me in a private discussion will not get you any closer to seeing the feature implemented except that I, with my new found understanding, may then try to convince other people in the public discussion. (And I'm not volunteering to act as the proxy advocate for a feature I'm not going to use.)
If you are not prepared to explain in public, yet are prepared to write several long posts which say nothing other than that you are not prepared to explain, then the only conclusion seem to be that there isn't any good reason for wanting the feature and not using one of the suggested alternatives. In which case the forum will forget about the issue entirely and it will never even hit GPSoftware's radar let alone be implemented.
(Unless you contact GPSoftware directly. The link is in my signature if you want to. I imagine their response will be the same as the forum's if you're not willing to explain what you want in detail and why you want it and why the suggested alternatives don't work for you.)
I'm not going to participate in this thread any more unless it evolves out of meta-discussion and back to discussing the actual feature. All we're doing right now is talking about talking about the idea, and going around in circles at that, so I'm done. If the discussion moves into the realms of something useful in terms of improving Opus and making Opus users happier than I will jump back in.
NO! I am not happy with this meta-discussion! That is precisely why I proposed taking it off the forum several days ago!
Please, pretty-please, actually read what I wrote several days ago!
"When I say I see a drawback, that's just me"
"If DOpus developers decide this is not a top priority, no problem, life goes on and I respect their business decisions."
"If DOpus doesn't implement this feature, it probably won't stop me from evaluating it or even recommending it and purchasing it."
Indeed, I've happily helped GPSoft identify a bug on a different issue, I've since moved on to entirely different stuff**. Please feel free to move on to other issues as well. It's not that I am afraid or ashamed to talk to you about it, it is simply boring, off-topic, and not relevant here.
Sorry, but I think it is 'you' that have not really been reading what some of 'us' have been writing... this forum is EXACTLY the place for the very discussions you quite strangely seem to be avoiding. Such discussions are one of the main reasons for this forums existence... I do think that this thread has degenerated into pointless conversation, and should probably be locked... but I hope you don't let this runaway topic dissuade you from either Opus or the forums. We're generally a really progressive and cooperative bunch here, it's just that I think your unwillingness to openly discuss ideas you yourself have raised on a forum MEANT for this purpose has some of us confused about what you hope to achieve by particpating on the forums...
It's quite simple... when you make a post asking if something works or could be 'made' to work a particular way to suit your liking, and ppl respond asking you to provide ideas on how it might best be implemented to meet 'your' idea of 'useful' - it's just plain couerteous to entertain the conversation. You made a reply to me specifically before about 'extending the right of a personal opinion to others...' which I found just as odd as your reluctance to have an actual discussion. I wasn't sure if you meant 'personal opinion' regarding the sort of functionality you had been asking about and advocating... or 'personal opinon' regarding your apparent dislike for talking about it in any detail here on the forums...
If it was about your 'opinion' that Dopus would do well to have the sort of feature you've asked about, well then I never made any comment depriving you of your right to that opinion, so I find your comment strange. Nobody else here needs to 'agree' with your idea(s) or support your request in order to have useful discussions about them. I think Nudel said something earlier to the effect of 'if you were to open up the dialog and actually 'have a discussion' about what you want and why other ways of getting a similar end result just don't cut the mustard' then maybe others would join in the discussion and the net result of THAT might be a more rounded out idea for a feature request that even MORE ppl might come to like and see value in... as well as more readily meet 'your needs'... which seem to be pretty specific.
If it was about your 'opinion' that you had asked not to discuss your ideas or other feelings on the subject after your initial post here on the forums, and you felt like myself and/or some others were badgering you into having a conversation you don't want to have... well then I'm sorry. I will respect that opinion and not ask any more questions of you...
But I will leave you with a final thought...
[quote="dreftymac"]When I buy a sandwich at the local lunch place, and I ask to make a substitution on the toppings, I expect to hear either: "yes", "no", or "yes, but we charge extra for that" ... I do not expect to hear "why?"
Even if they offer an alternate topping that they think should be "good enough" ... I do not expect it to be forced down my throat or to be badgered into giving detailed reasons for why the "good enough" is not "good enough" for me.
If they say to me "that might be a good idea, but you need to tell us how we can change our sandwich making process to meet your preferences" ... all I can say is, "there are plenty of sandwich places that do it, either figure it out from one of them, or feel free to ignore my request!"
What am I? A customer, or a sandwich-shop consultant?[/quote]
No, you're not a consultant... and nobody has asked you to be. You need to remember that while GPsoft do particpate here sometimes, this is a user-run forum. Enthusiastic fans and users spend ALOT of time here discussing ideas and offering help to other users - old and new. MANY new features in Opus are a direct result of the type of discussion that has NOT taken place here in this thread... So keep in mind that your questions about perfecting the sandwhich was made to 'other customers' and NOT the sandwhich shop 'owner'.
Seeing that you don't seem to like discussing your ideas, I for one will be sure not to aggravate you and will stick to the 'yes or no' answers you've asked for if you decide to continue posting here on this 'discussion forum'... which I hope you do.
.
!