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

["Julian Adams" <julian adams gmx net>]

> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 Sasha_Vasko osca state mo us wrote:
>
> > >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
> >

A change to the protocol itself would not be binary incompatible unless you
alter the public class interface. That isn't required is it ?

Julian