Re: Tabs, the notes

[Fernando <ferkiwi gmail com>]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:39 PM, GSR - FR <famrom infernal-iceberg com> wrote:
> Windows tabbed into a group must share position, depth, size, state,
> workspaces, and respond to normal commands like raise, lower, move,
> etc. Or simpler words, become the same window from user point of view.
>

What about the lisp point of view?
Would the tabs be displayed in the window list as different windows?
or would they be merged as a single window object?
I think it would be nicer if the tabbed windows were really a single
window in the lisp point of view. Also, it wouldn't be elegant to have
checks for every single command involving windows to exclude inactive
tabs.

The list of tabs could be a property of the windows.

> Reduce events on other tabs... thus hide their windows, like with
> shaded windows. Only active window will be shown, and be in charge of
> painting the representation for the rest of its group by mean of extra
> parts with special keymaps that focus other windows when clicked.

Fine. I think this would be wiser than current implementation.
But then, I think that it makes the following point unneeded:

> Position, depth, etc can be propagated from the visible to the rest
> after each command (this can be queued with a timer to avoid constant
> useless updates like changing 2 workspaces in 0.5 sec) or only to a
> different tab when it is focused (maybe trickier, maybe visual
> artifacts).

Why do we really need to propagate depth, etc?
The inactive tabs will be hidden, won't they?
If they are hidden there's no need of updating depth, position, etc.
The user won't see the hidden windows.

Also, this way it will be trivial to keep the properties of the window
before it was tabbed, on tab-switch the window properties can be
exchanged, so that when it is switched back and un-tabbed, the
depth/size/etc it had before the tabbing can be kept, without the need
of extra variables.


--
Fernando