Re: Icewm hacks for GNOME
- From: Felix Bellaby <felix pooh u-net com>
- To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel nuclecu unam mx>
- Cc: felix pooh u-net com, gnome-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Icewm hacks for GNOME
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 00:22:48 +0100 (BST)
Miguel de Icaza writes:
> > The .desktop files could store the window manager icons properly by
> > including a list of all the appnames that an app uses with an icon
> > for each. The first of these icons could be used in the panel menu.
> What is the difference between this and having each one of our
> toplevels set the wmclass property?
The toplevels have to set the wmclass property in order that the
window manager can recognise which application owns them (and
distinguish between their various transients, ...) What I am talking
about is how the window manager translates that information into
icons. This translation is usually done using a window manager
specific configuration file.
My proposal is to put the necessary information into the .desktop
files so that GNOME aware window managers can use the .desktop
files for configuration. At present, there are no window managers
which support this form of configuration but it would be relatively
easy to patch in support or use scripts to generate the configuration
files needed by existing window managers from the .desktop info.
(This is the job done by wmconfig and similar packages)
In the longer term, the gnome-libs should support an X protocol to
tell the window manager which icons an application needs (so that
remote window managers work correctly). This protocol could simply
copy the information in the .desktop files over the X protocol to the
window manager. Putting all the information in one place makes it easy
for the user and allows legacy applications which do not support an
X protocol to be configured with the same tools as GNOME apps.
> > These changes would need slight extensions to the desktop-entry API
> > but would make it easier for window managers to coordinate with the
> > configuration information maintained by GNOME. I would be happy to
> > put through these changes if everyone agrees.
> They seem like a good idea.
OK, I will have a look into it while I wait for other comments.
] [Thread Prev