Re: My comments on the WM spec

["Matthias Clasen" <Matthias Clasen poet de>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <Sasha_Vasko osca state mo us>
To: <wm-spec-list gnome org>; Matthias Clasen <Matthias Clasen poet de>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 15:54
Subject: Re: My comments on the WM spec


> >---------------
> >Owen wrote:
> >
> >> _NET_VIRTUAL_ROOTS
> >>
> >> Is this a) an (unordered) list of all virtual root windows other
> >> than the real root window, or b) a list of the window that
> >> corresponds to each desktop, either real or virtual?
> >>
> >> I'm a little nervous about including this since it is known
> >> that using virtual root windows introduces a number of problems
> >> for various operations (the ICCCM claims that a protocol
> >> extension would be needed to properly implement virtual root
> >> windows.)
> >
> >The ICCCM is right that this simple-minded approach to virtual roots
> >can't work properly. If you want to know why, read Keith Packards
> >work about a pseudo-root extension. It can be found at
> > http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/talks/proot.tar.gz.
>
> The intentions of Keith are far more fetching then the idea behind
> _NET_VIRTUAL_ROOT. He talks about TRUE virtual root, with separate
> window manager running in each, with client windows maping self on
> to the virtual root instead of real root, etc.
>
> The current
> intentions behind _NET_VIRTUAL_ROOTS are much simplier - virtual roots
> are used only as a means to implement virtual desktops WITHIN single
> window manager. From the point of view of client window virtual root
> is merely a HUGE frame window, not a real root. All the messages are
> still refering to real root window. Clients map themselves to the
> real root. There are no multiple window managers to install conflicting
> colormaps, or cause any other conflicts. With enough care even clients
> that use override_redirect windows (like KDE 1.0 for desktop icons)
> works fine.
>
> So all of what Keith Packard describes in his paper related to a
> completely different functionality, and has no relation whatsoever to
> _NET_VIRTUAL_ROOTS thing (except for name).
> Since he states that ICCCM is refering to
> the same set of functionality, we can assume that ICCCM statement that
> separate extension is needed, is not relevant for _NET_VIRTUAL_ROOTS
either.
>
> Yes, there are several drawbacks in using this approach, but those are
> much smaller, then what is involved in any other virtual desktop approach,
> and are completely resolved by introducing _NET_VIRTUAL_ROOTS property.
>

OK, but then why not be honest and call it _NET_VIRTUAL_DESKTOPS instead.
The term root has a technical meaning in the X world.

Matthias