Re: Proposal for ConfigureRequest handling

> If you have to change all WMs anyway (to add support for your new 
> property), why not change them to deal properly with static gravity 
> instead ? 

I agree with this. 

> If we indeed need a way to advertise support for static gravity by the WM,
> wouldn't it be more consistent to add an new atom like 

Dominik's proposal allows for "fixes" to old (non ICCCM compliant wm)
without modifying the actual WM (can be done by an external program). But I'd
rather that ICCCM compliance was fixed, ... I'd rather see that all apps using
wmspec hints would require this to be ICCCM compliant anyway (at least when WM
claims to be, the existance of _NET_SUPPORTED should guarantee that).

The root window setting should be enough.

We need:
1. improve the description of correct behavior in the wm-spec
in *big bold letters* ;) (The current win_gravity handling is not obvious
enough). I know this because I was fixing these kinds problems for icewm-1.2.0
2. Make a test program that tests all aspects of this (in pure Xlib)
3. Maintain a list of all non-compliant/buggy window managers
 AND applications (various applications have hacks that break on compliant
WMs -- galeon and xv come to mind).

If we can't have a standard way of positioning windows, X is in a sorry
state indeed.

I am willing to make a test program but I'll need help with reviews. (I am
writing test programs for all netwm hints as part of icewm implementation).


Java has some other problems though. It would be nice if the apps could get
the geometry of the managed window (decorations), before showing the window
itself. The problem is (last time I checked) that Java API set's the window
size using the frame geometry, not the client geometry (broken IMO).


GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.

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