Re: Any more features?

On 26 Nov, Matthias Ettrich scribbled:
->  > But, my general feeling is that session-management issues
->  > should be dealt with separately or left to a later version
->  > of the spec. and I'd consider PING/PID/INSTANCE_ID
->  > to be session-management issues.
->  I almost agree, apart from PING. What has PING to do with session management?
->  PING addresses the embarrassing fact that a ICCCM compliant window manager
->  cannot offer a reasonable working close button to the user.
->  IMHO closing windows is one of the key issues in window management. Not
->  addressing that in version 1 of the specs is a bit strange. I can't see how the
->  PING protocol can be designed better or easier than what I proposed. If anybody
->  has any ideas or arguments why my proposal is wrong or were the shortcomings
->  are, I will be happy to delay the decision to a later version of the specs. 

and if we have PING, PID comes in as a fallback mechanism that's i
paralell with XKillClient() in this case. so they tag along togeteher.

as well the INSTANCE_ID comes along for the ride - the wm (or launcher
app or whatever) coudl provde an ability to only launch that app once -
when being lanched the WM knwos what INSTANCE_Id is associated with
that launch - whena  window with that instance Id is unmapped or
destroyed etc. it can enable the launcher button/menu again since the
instace that was there has gone...

they all tie in and are important - it's a trivial way of mapping
aninstance fo a launch without complex session management and that is
easy to graft onto legacy apps.

--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)

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