Re: WM-SPEC - what needs to happen for release ?

[Sasha_Vasko osca state mo us]

>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, John Harper wrote:
>
>> Bradley T. Hughes writes:
>> |> I think the differences were in _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE and another 
similar
>> |> property (spec defines these as vectors of atoms, KDE implementation
>> |> has them as integers). A few days ago someone tried sawfish with the
>> |> KDE2 beta and ran into problems due to this (sawfish includes a
>> |> prototype implementation of the current spec)
>> |
>> |and as i recall... this was discussed but never resolved... perhaps 
now is
>> |the time
>>
>> Definitely -- is there any possibility that you will change your
>> implementation to match the current state of the spec?
>
>Well... a binary incompatible change to KDE2 just before a release would
>upset quite a few people.  A very good, convincing argument over why a
>list of atoms is more desirable than an enumerated value would have to be
>presented.  The argument that the list can be extended in the future also

Isn't that what betas are for - to iron out bugs and deficiences ?
It would only take a few lines of code to convert from flagset/enum into
the list of atoms and back, thus effectively hiding the change from any 
app that is using API.
Lot more people will get upset for lot longer time, if the change is not 
made and KDE goes out with incompatible implementation of specs.

>Bradley T. Hughes <bhughes trolltech com>

Cheers
Sasha Vasko