URL -> Growl-Message -> $BROWSER starts URL

KarlVoit · Post by **KarlVoit** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:10 pm

Hi!

Is it reasonable/possible, that Growl can start the default web browser with an URL provided in a Growl-message?

Growl has to parse the message and if the format is OK/matched, start a new tab in the default browser with the URL given.

What needs to be done for this feature?

Is it possible at all?

Thanks!

Post by **The_Tick** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:39 pm

If the application sending utilizes a clickback and the user clicks it, it will send that application notice that the notification got clicked. Then the app can do what it wants with it, including what you just suggested.

KarlVoit · Post by **KarlVoit** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:51 pm

The_Tick wrote:If the application sending utilizes a clickback and the user clicks it, it will send that application notice that the notification got clicked. Then the app can do what it wants with it, including what you just suggested.

Ah, thanks! I did not knew that.

But this is not what I need ;-) I usually send my URLs from a Linux-box to my OS X desktop using ruby-growl from the command line. Therefore I try to avoid interaction here.

Post by **The_Tick** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:13 pm

Then no, Growl does not and will not provide this functionality.

KarlVoit · Post by **KarlVoit** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:52 pm

The_Tick wrote:Then no, Growl does not and will not provide this functionality.

Ack.

But I guess something like "[x] open http-URLs in messages in your browser" might be very cool for a number of things in OS X. Not just for my problem now ...

A "bad" software cannot use this for illegal things because it has to be accepted by Growl and the user can disable that feature as well (or even on per-application-basis?).

Post by **The_Tick** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:19 am

It's not about that, it's about scope.

KarlVoit · Post by **KarlVoit** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:28 am

The_Tick wrote:It's not about that, it's about scope.

I see. You mean that the browser pops up suddenly and the user gets irritated?

Well, for me it would be no problem because all http-Growl-messages are being sent by me. Technically, I think that a "[x] enable URL opening" on per-application-basis" could solve this issue.

Or did I get it wrong?

Post by **The_Tick** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:14 am

We're not trying to do that sort of thing with Growl, it's not within the scope of the project. This would be considered feature/scope creep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_%28p ... agement%29

Post by **bgannin** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:12 am

I'd also be curious as to how many would actually understand and/or use such functionality versus the consternation it might generate.

KarlVoit · Post by **KarlVoit** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:56 am

We're not trying to do that sort of thing with Growl, it's not within the scope of the project. This would be considered feature/scope creep

bgannin wrote:I'd also be curious as to how many would actually understand and/or use such functionality versus the consternation it might generate.

OK, now I got it *g*

Thanks for your help.