Re: Any more features?

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

On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Matthias Ettrich wrote:

> > To handle all these cases well, you basically need a user-friendly
> > 'top' ... something that will integrate the information from
> > the SM, the list of X clients, and whatever information is 
> > available from /proc (or equivalent) and give the user the chance
> > to see what is going on in more detail and make an informed
> > decision.  And that definitely is straying into SM territory.
> > 
> Ah! Thanks, Owen, now I see :)  Although it's better to destroy at least the
> windows rather than nothing, it's pretty suboptimal, I agree.
> 
> The SM, however, doesn't provide us with a PID either. So Raster's solution
> sounds right to me.

I would tend to agree that PID & PING should go in the spec.

As for CLIENT_ID - I'm not sure that needs to go in.  As I understand,
most cases can be dealt with with an LD_PRELOAD hack, so no extra
compliance is required from the app.  What do we gain from standardising
this behaviour?  

I think that, as Owen suggests, we should get this version of the spec
out without treading into SM areas, then deal with SM seperately.

Paul