mottosso
commented
6 years ago Initially I was thinking you could have a terminal executable that'll set this up
I think this is the best approach.
Having the launcher open up a shell is a little backwards, since it is with the Avalon CLI that you create projects and assets that the launcher would need to launch anything.
The next logical step however I think is getting rid of the terminal. Or at least make it optional. What should really happen is the user launching a "project manager" GUI or web interface after having started the Docker container, where they can either import the demo projects or create their first project from scratch.
Ideally I'd like that to be CGWire, but I'd take some research figuring out how ready that is and how much work it'd take to get a prototype up. The safer option is to update the existing project manager, make it capable of not only creating assets in an existing project, but also to create a project too (and import one).
So, should there be a terminal executable? Perhaps as a first step in getting this repo in a working state and aligned with the current documentation. Baby steps. Otherwise I'd welcome bypassing that, moving straight into either CGWire or Project Manager.
What do you think @tokejepsen?
tokejepsen
Goal
Provide users with a terminal where the
avalonexecutable is available.Motivation
A lot of the documentation around Avalon assumes the executable
avalonis available in the terminal.Currently you have to either setup your environment
PATHto point to the volume or use the absolute path. How about we provide this for users?Initially I was thinking you could have a
terminalexecutable that'll set this up, but then I also thought it would be logical for the launcher to handle this, since it can already handle opening a shell in a film/asset context. I don't have enough overview of Avalon to know to workload or whether is fits to have the launcher handle this situation.Tasks