Re: Icewm hacks for GNOME

["Geoff Harrison (mandrake)" <mandrake mandrake net>]

On Wed, Sep 09, 1998 at 01:44:31PM +0100, Felix Bellaby wrote:
>  > not necessary - wm sees iocn window id, pixmap id and mask Id - it caan
>  > query their sizes - if they dont conform the WM has many options.. not
>  > accept them - forcibly resize or scale the data etc...
> 
> This is feasible for legacy apps that provide an ICON_WINDOW, ICON_PIXMAP or 
> ICON_MASK but there quite a few which do not even do that: xterm & nxterm
> are popular examples!

BUZZ.  run xterm +ai
it most certainly DOES use an icon window.
(I just love it when people give poor examples)

> 
> I am disappointed if E is planning to use the icons supplied by legacy 
> apps without providing any means for the user to reconfigure them. 
> IMHO the icons from Netscape and Emacs are going to look awfully ugly 
> amongst all that enlightened elegance.

On the contrary.  (I've been writing the icon code so allow me to speak up
for what E actually DOES do write now)

You define a base imageclass for your icons.  On top of this imageclass
is rendered a) the icon window (if it exists) or b) the icon pixmaps (if
they exist)  or c) not a damned thing (if nothing is there to use)

If you are thusly inclined, you can assign a windowmatch to a window type
and use the windowmatch to define another imageclass to use for your icon.
at some point I want to be able to also embed the pixmaps and window into these
if the uses specifies it at that point.  

> This provides no mechanism for creating a root menu that resembles the 
> panel menu. In order to do that you need to load images from files and 
> render them. IMHO this is really easy to do and once you have done it
> you might as well use the same approach for all the other fixed image
> icons that you need. 

no you can't enforce that applications run on the same system as the 
host for the display.  I can't enforce that gnome runs off the same machine
as E.  You just can't do that.  Period.  I pipe displays across my network
here all the time.  LOTS of users do that.

> I am not sure in which way I am supposed to be breaking wm compliance
> by proposing a new protocol while intending to continue to support the 
> protocols used by existing wms. You are proposing a new protocol yourself!

I don't care about you breaking compliance, that's not the issue.  the
issue is feasibility in some circumstances.  your window manager and gnome
should not be required to run from the same machine to your display.
That's basically the end of that discussion, as far as I'm concerned.


-- 
Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
Senior Systems Engineer
Intellimedia Commerce (http://www.intellimedia.com)
Author, MAW Shell Replacement (http://mandrake.net/MAW)
Author, Enlightenment Window Manager (http://www.enlightenment.org)
phone: (404)262-0001x102