Re: Decorations (again)

[Paul Warren <pdw ferret lmh ox ac uk>]

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Dominik Vogt wrote:

> > OK, I take your point, and I think you're right.
> > 
> > However, there are apps that allow you to specify their startup geometry.
> > Perhaps the spec should suggest that remembering a start up geometry is
> > the job of the Window Manager and not the app?  I see the workspace and
> > layer as part of the geometry, so it seems inconsistent to allow some of
> > the geometry, but not all of it, to be app specified...
> 
> Hm, the same reasoning applies to window geometry.  Only a few applications
> do remember a specific position although every application might benefit
> from it.  

Absolutely.  Although, I think you'll appreciate that it is not the
easiest feature to implement cleanly in a WM.  How do you recognise a
window when you see it again?  For example, the title may have changed.
In the case of multiple windows with the same class, it may be necessary
to remember the WM_ROLE of each window.  Even so, I now agree that this
should be the WM's job.

> The usual way to get an app. at a certain position is to use
> X resources.  Because of this most window managers can't remember
> application positions.  I'm not sure what we can/should do about that.

I don't quite follow.  Are you saying because the X resources mechanism
exists for many apps, most WMs don't bother to implement this behaviour?

> I think if a layer hint is necessary it should be possible to set it
> as an X resource and on the command line too (if we want consistency).
> The most flexible way is the command line (otherwise all my xterms would
> end up on the top layer, for example).

Yes, but do we want a layer hint?  If, as you suggest, that apps should
not be allowed to specify the "on-top" hint, then why else would we want a
layer hint?

Paul