Re: WM SPec purpose (was: Re: wms offsetting XMoveWindow() coords)

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Nathan Clemons wrote:

> i think part of the problem you outlined is due to people (me included) being
> lazy in structuring replies on the spec. it'd be nice if the Subject: lines
> would identify the _NET_* properties in question, and if several replies would
> be formed from a draft for different issues (e.g. properties being discussed).

I think that this is a very good point.  Sensible trimming and
re-subjecting would help things a lot.

> overly complexify window manager implementations (e.g. basing it on
> CORBA) and introduce new dependancies for them (be that MICO or ORBit,
> one side will definitely be unhappy, not to mention third party app writers).

I think that the decision to use CORBA or hints should be a purely
technical one.  I believe that a very important role of this spec is to
improve the overall feel of Desktop Environments.  If CORBA offers
significant technical advantages over hints, then we should consider it.
Does it?

> as far as window manager customization goes, specification of an all-doing
> protocol that would allow an application provided GUI (e.g. a GNOME capplet)
> to control all of a wm's behaviour aspects and configuration, is definitely
> beyond the scope of this spec.
> we'll get nowhere discussing this all over again, and the protocol would
> never cover all wms' requirements. if people insist on such a thing, they
> are better off starting a new spec project for that purpose only and not
> holding off production of this one.

If you are refering to what I suggested some time ago on this list, then I
think you missed my point.  An all-doing protocol controlling all aspects
of a WM's behaviour is clearly ridiculous - it removes all the advantages
of being able to choose your own Window Manager as all wms' features must
be a subset of the features defined in such a protocol.

All I am saying is that we should define how a fully compliant window
manager should present its configuration utility.  Should it provide
capplets for configuration?  Or, if it is providing its own configuration
tool, how does it tell Gnome/KDE what this tool is, so that when you hit
"run config tool for this WM" it Just Works.  IMHO this should Definitely
be in the spec.  If we don't address this, then all we have done is
rehashed the existing hints into something less broken, rather than
addressing the bigger picture of making Window Managers integrate well
with desktop environments.



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