Re: Decorations (again)

On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 12:48:26PM +0000, wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 12:30:03PM +0000, wrote:
> > > >> The below layer should be reserved desktop icons and named "desktop". If
> > > >> we need a layer for normal windows that stay below other windows, we
> > > >> need both "desktop" and "below" IMO.
> > > >
> > > >Indeed, there is a difference between "desktop" and "below".  Desktop
> > > >means desktop features.  "Below" is normal windows that stay below other
> > > >windows, but above the desktop.
> > > 
> > > Now I'm confused. I thought you agreed that we only needed three layers.
> > > 
> > > BTW I agree with Marko that the bottom layer should be called "desktop" to
> > > avoid confusion.  ;)
> > 
> > Yes, I thought at least this was a common consensus.  Didn't we agree that
> > 'below' and 'ontop' layers were unnecessary in the spec.  Although you
> > might want to place an application on top but not on the dock layer, this
> > is nothing an application can request via the spec, right?
> I think it should be.  Suppose I want my CD player to always be on top,
> everytime I start it.  There will an option in its preferences that allow
> it to specify this on startup.  Similarly for Omni-present.  Otherwise the
> WM has to remember the geometry and on-top status of every application it
> has ever seen.  I know that Window Maker does something along these lines,
> but it has always struck me as a bit of an ugly workaround...
> Note, I am not talking about apps started under Session Management, where
> it is undoubtedly the window manager's responsibility to remember such
> things.

Why in the world would you like to have a different way to configure
that for each and every application?  I you chose your WM carefully
you can configure the layer everywhere with the same method.  Plus
you will have to convince the author of the CD player to write such
an option.  Surely we don't want to demand that every application has
such an option to satisfy any user's need (e.g. I might want a certain
xterm/rxvt/ater/eterm... on desktop level for console output; or perhaps
an xclock/rclock/aclock/daliclock...; or why not xload/xosview/xmem/
xcpustate...).  Do we really want that hundreds of applications have
to be rewritten just to allow you to put it on top when this can be
handled efficiently by the WM already?  A nice KDE/GNOME compliant WM
that was specifically designed to integrate into the DE will have a
configuration tool that allows you to make such settings without
messing with the application.

You know that I'm against layers anyway, even for dock applications,
but at least a task bar/panel/... is a special application where you
know when you write it that many people like it on top - thus the
dock layer should suffice.


Dominik ^_^

Dominik Vogt, Agilent Technologies, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/464-4596, fax: 07031/464-3883,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]